Is making carbon ’safe’ the answer?

Mandating fossil fuel producers to sequester (bury) a steadily increasing fraction of the carbon they extract would be a simple, effective, and fair way of sharing out the pain of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, according to a leading group of climate researchers.

The concept, called SAFE (Sequestered Adequate Fraction of Extracted) carbon, is put forward by scientists from Oxford University and the University of Wyoming in a Commentary article published online today in a special issue ofNature Geoscience focusing on carbon sequestration.

The researchers suggest that fossil fuel producers could be mandated to sequester a steadily increasing fraction of the carbon they extract from the ground, with the fraction set to reach 100 per cent before total emissions into the atmosphere exceed an agreed total, with the costs passed on to fossil fuel consumers.

Their work explores the policy implications of research published earlier this year which showed that it is the total amount of carbon released into the atmosphere over all time that principally determines the risk of dangerous climate change, not the rate of emission in any given year.

‘The neat thing about SAFE carbon is that is breaks the apparent conflict between short-term economic development and long-term climate protection,’ said Dr Myles Allen of Oxford University’s Department of Physics, an author of the paper with Dr David Frame, of Oxford University’s Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, and Chuck Mason, of the Department of Economics and Finance at the University of Wyoming.

Dr Allen added: ‘We would no longer be asking a country like India to accept limits on their consumption. Instead, we would be saying that as long as you use SAFE carbon, you can go ahead and consume as much as you like. Of course, unlike a comprehensive emission permit or carbon tax regime, mandatory sequestration would not generate massive new government revenues or provide a mechanism for modifying consumer behaviour, but depending on your political perspective, that might be considered a good thing. We didn’t save the Ozone Layer by rationing deodorant.’

Full text of article in Nature Geoscience
For more information contact Dr Myles Allen on [mobile]: +44 (0)7776 306691 or email myles.allen@physics.ox.ac.uk

Alternatively contact the University of Oxford Press Office on +44 (0)1865 283877 or email press.office@admin.ox.ac.uk

Notes to editors

The Commentary article, entitled ‘The case for mandatory sequestration’, is published online in Nature Geoscience today at:http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/index.html
A first study in Nature (April 2009), led by Dr Myles Allen from Oxford’s Department of Physics showed that total cumulative emissions of one trillion tonnes of carbon (1 Tt C, or 3,670 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide) over the entire ‘anthropocene’ period 1750-2500 causes a most likely peak warming of 2degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures. Most of the world’s governments are committed to avoiding warming in excess of 2degrees Celsius.
A second study in Nature (April 2009), led by Dr Malte Meinshausen from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research and co-authored by Dr Allen and Dr David Frame from the Oxford University Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, found that a total emission budget of about 0.9 Tt C gives a best-estimate peak warming by 2100 of 2degrees Celsius, including the effects of other human influences on climate. This budget drops to less than 0.75 Tt C (equivalent to 1,000 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide between 2000 and 2050) if the risk of temperatures exceeding 2degrees Celsius is limited to one-in-four.
‘Save the trillionth tonne’ research news release:http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_releases_for_journalists/090428.html

Exxon is right!

The Smith School’s Dr Bettina Wittneben will present recently published research on the best ways of cutting emissions at the Copenhagen climate talks next month.

Her study, published in the journal Energy Policy, suggests that cap-and-trade schemes, such as the EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS), may be more costly and less effective in cutting global emissions than an international carbon tax.

That same claim was made by Rex Tillerson, Exxon Mobil’s chief executive in January this year. He said a tax would be more direct, more transparent and more effective.

“I have to say that for the first time, I agree with Exxon,” Dr Wittneben says in her paper. “It appears that Exxon’s calculations and mine reach the same conclusion: that the massive carbon market that we have constructed under the Kyoto Protocol and the EU ETS has cost a lot of money but has not reduced emissions.

“It is striking how the EUETS…has been incredibly successful in transferring money from taxpayers and consumers to governments and large utilities yet so incredibly unsuccessful in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

Dr Wittneben’s presentation will be one of 200 side events at the Copenhagen talks, which run from December 7-18.

Mary Robinson, the former Irish President and United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights, will be among other speakers at the December 15 side event when experts will discuss the application of equity and human rights, to legislation and other measures to tackle climate change.

Dr Wittneben will detail the differences between cap-and-trade and a carbon tax and show that there is no limit to the emissions cuts that a tax could achieve.

The EU’s trading system has failed to set a sufficiently high price for carbon and can only work if ambitious targets are set and enforced, her study says. She adds that policymakers must immediately draft tax reforms to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

“When it comes to climate change, we do not have time on our side,” Dr Wittneben says. “Let us follow Exxon’s lead and call for an internationally coordinated carbon tax. Welcome aboard, Mr Tillerson!”

· Dr Wittneben’s presentation will part of the side event entitled Climate Justice, Ethics and the Copenhagen Agenda: Roles of Institutions, Civil Society and Markets at 9am, Tuesday December 15

· Wittneben, BF, Exxon is right: Let us re-examine our choice for a cap-and-trade system over a carbon tax. Energy Policy 37 (2009) 2462–2464

Saving forests and those living in them

The benefits of forests such as carbon storage, reduced flooding and soil erosion, and the provision of food and jobs should be protected in a new climate change treaty, researchers say.

Safeguards for these ecosystem services, which would be part of an agreement to pay countries to protect their forests, would also guarantee the rights of forest-dwellers and cut global carbon emissions, their study says.

The paper, by Dr Chuks Okereke of Oxford’s Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment and Kate Dooley, formerly of Imperial College London, says the new treaty should logging2 acknowledge the global and local benefits of forest protection.

Proposals for rewarding nations for preserving their forests will be high on the agenda at climate change talks in Copenhagen next month.

Dr Chuks Okereke said: “Saving forests is essential but we need to take the interests of the poor very seriously in deciding how we do this. If forests are protected properly, global emissions will be cut and the livelihoods of forest-dwellers will be protected too.”

Deforestation is responsible for up to 20 per cent of global emissions. Forests store carbon but logging releases it into the atmosphere. They regulate temperature and rainfall and create jobs for millions of people. Tropical forests in countries such as Brazil, Indonesia and Ghana also harbour a greater range of wildlife than any other habitat with deforestation causing the extinction of 100 species every day.

Rewards for saving forests were ruled out of the Kyoto deal because carbon monitoring was inaccurate. Measures of forest carbon have now improved and negotiators plan to include forest protection in a post-Kyoto deal. Kyoto expires in 2012.

Kate Dooley said: “Talks about including forests in a new climate agreement are being dominated by the same carbon trading systems that areundermining Kyoto. If industrialised nations pay to protect forests but are then allowed to keep polluting, neither the climate nor forest peoples will benefit.”

Dr Okereke said: “If the climate change regime is seen as part of the wider search for global sustainability, then proposals must be judged not only on the basis of economic efficiency, but also on their ability to promote conservation and on the needs of the most vulnerable peoples on the planet.

“One of the most important issues is the extent to which the rights and well-being of millions of indigenous communities who live and depend on forests are considered in the design of policy arrangements.”

Okereke, C., Dooley, K., Principles of justice in proposals and policy approaches to avoided deforestation: Towards a post-Kyoto climate agreement. Global Environ. Change (2009), doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.08.004
Talks on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) will be central to the Copenhagen climate meeting, which runs from December 7-18, 2009.
The 2007 decision to include forests in the post-Kyoto deal followed a proposal to measure deforestation rates nationally.
The 2004 World Bank report, Sustaining Forests: A Development Strategy, said an estimated 1.6 billion people relied on tropical forests for their daily needs.
The 2002 World Atlas of Biodiversity, published by The Nature Conservancy, estimated that 100 species become extinct every day because of deforestation.
Kate Dooley has an MSc in Global Environmental Change from Imperial College London. She is now policy advisor to the environmental and social justice NGO FERN. The group is campaigning to ensure that any forest-climate agreement in Copenhagen contributes to climate protection by ruling out forest carbon trading. FERN believes that allowing carbon trading to be part of the agreement would cause emissions to increase in industrialised countries and undermine the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities.

Best and worst practices of global energy firms

Smith School scientists have won funding to study the links between the climate change strategies of energy-intensive companies and the environmental policies of the countries in which they operate.

They will compare best practices in UK, US, German and Australian businesses and study the relationships between those practices and national policies.

The Australian Research Council has agreed to fund the three-year study by Dr Bettina Wittneben and Dr Chuks Okereke from the Smith School, Professor David Levy from the University of Massachusetts and Professor Bobby Banerjee from the University of Western Sydney.

The group will interview major oil, gas and utility firms including RWE npower,E.On and Shell to establish how they have influenced government policies and how they are responding to climate change regulations including the EU’s Emissions Trading System, carbon offsetting opportunities and pressure to disclose their emissions.

Dr Wittneben said: “We will try to relate best practice to national policies, find out what businesses are doing and what they are not doing, and why some companies are doing more than others. Shedding light on their practices will reveal where businesses could be doing more.”

The scientists chose the four countries because each is tackling climate change in a different way. Germany has feed-in tariffs to encourage the use of renewables but the UK has other mechanisms.

In contrast, the approach in the US has been largely state-based. “Australia is different again,” Dr Wittneben says, “also has extremely high emissions but this is mostly because of the long distances between cities rather than directly due to pollution.

“The UK and Germany are more progressive than Australia and the US, or at least that’s the image, and have been doing quite a bit to cut emissions compared to the other two.

“But the new governments in Australia and the US mean things in those countries are changing quite quickly. Two years ago the US was quite behind in terms of energy efficiency and renewables. It still is but that’s starting to improve.”

David Levy blogs on the project

Finance measures have failed to cut emissions

Delays now in cutting emissions mean “taking a huge gamble with civilisation,” researchers say in a letter published this week in Nature Reports.

Politicians are wrongly using scientific uncertainty to avoid taking action to tackle climate change and their reliance on economic measures to bring about emissions cuts has failed, Dr Mark Charlesworth of Keele University and the Smith School’s Dr Chuks Okereke say.

“Despite continued research, identifying tipping points robustly for the Earth system is deeply problematic,” their letter adds. “Identifying climate targets cannot be relied on to produce desired changes in human action.”

The letter follows the publication of a study by Dr Charlesworth and Dr Okereke suggesting that policy-makers are using the claim that they need more research and more predictions before they can take action.

When policies are made, too little action follows, their research finds. In addition, decision-makers have accepted that climate change impacts will take effect gradually without sufficient evidence.

Governments and others should rely less on cost-benefit analyses in determining policies because they may not be appropriate.

“The prevailing assumption appears to be that the climate system will not change abruptly within the timeframe needed for humans to hone their climate predictions,” the letter says.

“At the minimum, the ethical basis upon which climate policy is made should be subject to serious global public debate. It is clear that the economic paradigm used for the past 20 years has failed to promote significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.”

· Charlesworth, M, Okereke, C, Policy responses to rapid climate change: An epistemological critique of dominant approaches. Global Environmental Change (2009), doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.09.001

Dr Charlesworth and Dr Okereke talk about their research

Waking with Penguins

It’s a no brainer. Given the choice between sleeping snug inside a tent at -15 on Antarctic ice and doing without any sort of canvas protection at all, we all know what we would do.

Or do we? Smith School Research Assistant Aaron Holdway will soon face that decision and the chances are he will go without. He is about to join 43 other young-ish people on an educational expedition to the Antarctic and a night camping on ice, with the purest, star-filled skies as your roof, is one of the group’s options.

“It’s not going to be the most comfortable night of my life,” Aaron jokes. “But the Southern skies will be amazing because there’s no light pollution and we might wake up to penguins in the morning.”

Aaron, 30, has worked at the Smith School for a year. He is part of the School’s transport research team which has just finished the School’s first major project, the Future of Mobility, a study of the potential for low-carbon transport this century.

He is also a master’s student at Oxford University, and is based at Linacre College, a 36-year-old college that claims environmental awareness as part of its ethos. His trip will be integral to his studies, and could help shape his future and perhaps the future of others.

“The kind of experiences you have and the things you pick up when you are young and at university can set the pattern for your life. If someone can galvanise; if they can say ‘here’s a problem’, then someone else may take it up and make it their life’s work.

“There are some extraordinary people at Oxford, people who will become politicians or influential in the business world. I’m hoping that my trip will have a transformative effect on the people I share it with. It will raise awareness and could have a cascading effect on what people do in the future.

“And I will have some useful ammunition to fire at climate sceptics. We are going with scientists who know the area well and will show us the evidence of climate change. We’re not going as tourists. It’s an expedition and we will be doing some serious work.”

First class

Aaron is from Nova Scotia, Canada, so cold nights are nothing new. He came to Oxford in 2006 having achieved a first in chemistry at Queens University,Ontario. His master’s is in environmental policy and he says his science background gives him an advantage.

“It’s unusual to have people studying environmental policy who have a background in science. Most of them have social science backgrounds; say in politics, economics or sociology.

“It should be more common to be a scientist but instead we often have people working on environmental policy without an understanding of the science of climate change.”

Aaron heard about the Antarctic expedition earlier this year, from a friend at Linacre who had already been. The Antarctica expeditions are organised by the group 2041, and have been running each year since 2003.

2041 was set up by polar explorer Robert Swan OBE, the first person to walk to both South and North Poles, in 1985 and 1989 respectively. Three years later, Swan was charged, by the Rio world summit, with undertaking a global environmental mission aimed at industry, business and young people.

His mission evolved into one to inspire future generations to become leaders of sustainability, promoting renewable energy use. He wanted to help combat climate change in the North and South Poles by engaging the decision makers of tomorrow.

“We decided that the promotion of renewable energy worldwide would be one of the ways we could preserve the last great wilderness on Earth, Antarctica,” Swan says in a 2041 video. “In 2041, when the oil supplies start to dwindle, we should be using renewable energy worldwide and there will be no need to come here and destroy this absolutely amazing place.” Aaron adds: “2041 want to raise awareness that protection may not last forever. They want to keep Antarctica pure.”

Protection

Antarctica is twice the size of Australia, and is centred on the South Pole. It is covered by more than five million square miles of ice – 90 per cent of all ice in the world – and boasts the lowest recorded temperature on Earth -89.2C at Russia’s Vostok research station in the southern Pole of Cold, in 1983. It has no permanent human residents.

It is protected by the Antarctic Treaty which prohibits drilling, mining and military activities until 2041. When safeguards expire, protection could be reduced. “Our aim is to work towards the continuing protection of the Antarctic Treaty so that the last great wilderness on earth is never exploited,” 2041 says.

Aaron’s trip, the International Antarctic Treaty Expedition, marks the 50^thanniversary of the agreement, signed on December 1, 1959.

It starts in Ushuaia, Argentina, the world’s southernmost city, on November 16, where the 2041 group will climb Glacier Martial, which bears down on the city but which has retreated markedly because of rising temperatures. “Even before going to Antarctica we will see the impacts of climate change,” Aaron says. Four days later the team will be on board the M/V Clipper Adventurer, sailing 1,000km through the Drake Passage, the roughest sea in the world which attracts cyclone conditions about every three days.

The group will land on Antarctica on November 21, firstly on the South Shetland Islands and then spend five more days exploring the region. They could see some of the eight species of whales found in Antarctica, including orca, blue and humpback whales, seals, penguins of course and huge albatrosses, birds which land only to breed.

They will experience the continent’s “majestic beauty, observe its fragile ecosystems and take time to truly become inspired by the unique experience that is Antarctica” 2041 says. Personal development is important, and participants will be “uniquely positioned to share their experiences and knowledge gained with their colleagues, friends and families back home.”

The average age of the group is 27 and the age band is 17 to 48. Applicants have to win selection by proving their worth in written testimony. “There is nothing else like [Antarctica] on Earth, and it is a truly rare and special honour to be able to visit it,” Aaron said in his application.

“The opportunity to [go] in the name of protecting its future makes this not just a personal pilgrimage but a journey that can have a much wider impact, helping to encourage those I meet to work toward the same cause.

“I know more than ever that [this will be] a life-changing experience, and life-changing experiences can make an incredible impact on others who hear someone’s firsthand account.”

Sleepless

2041’s Antarctic adventure is not a cheap and can cost up to $25,000 per person. Aaron was lucky, or more likely compelling. “We had a fund raising evening when Rob gave his life story. He is a brilliant speaker but after he sat down two of us also had to speak. He was a hard act to follow but it must have gone well because after that, I was offered a place for £2,000.

“Growing up I had a list of places I wanted to see. I’ve been to most of those places – Indonesia, South Africa, Egypt and Everest base camp – but I never thought I’d get to Antarctica. It feels almost like going to the moon. You see documentaries about it and it seems an unreal place. The thought of actually getting to go is unbelievable.

“Of course I’m excited about going but I’m a bit nervous too and I hadn’t even got my gear 48 hours before leaving – where do you find Antarctic clothing in England?

“I am not a religious person but this could well be the closest I come to having a religious experience. My trip to Everest base camp gave me an inkling of how powerful such an experience can be. To have such a dramatic landscape around you…I think it will be the scale as much as anything.”

Excitement and wonder could keep Aaron awake through his night on Antarctic ice. It won’t be the only sleepless night he faces before he gets there but sleep will be last thing on his mind in what is certain to be the trip of a lifetime.

Aaron will be blogging ataaronholdway.wordpress.com until November 16. He will not be able to communicate between then and November 30 but an expedition blog will be available on the 2041 website.

BBC Oxford

Oxford Mail

Itinerary at a glance

Day 1: Monday 16 November: Ushuaia, Argentina – Arrive in the southernmost city in the world

Day 2: Tuesday 17 November: Ushuaia, Argentina – Team workshops begin

Day 3: Wednesday 18 November: Embarkation on our ship the M/V Clipper Adventurer

Day 4 – 5: Thursday 19 – Friday 20 November: Crossing the Drake Passage

Day 6: Saturday 21 November: First Antarctic landing – South Shetland Islands – King George Island

Day 7 – 12: Sunday 22 – Friday 27 November: Antarctica and the Peninsula – Exploring the white continent

Day 13 – 14: Saturday 28 and Sunday 29 November: Sailing the Drake Passage to Ushuaia

Day 15: Monday 30 November 2009: Arrive Ushuaia, Argentina – Disembark and return home

Letter from Barcelona

Copenhagen too big to fail

Dan Bodansky blogs from the Barcelona climate change talks

Yesterday, the chair of the climate change negotiations in Barcelona and the executive secretary of the UN climate change secretariat both confirmed what had been obvious to most knowledgeable observers for some time: theCopenhagen Conference next month will be unable to adopt a new climate change treaty. Instead, they suggested, as a goal, adopting a series of decisions that would be ‘politically’ but not legally ‘binding’ and would form the basis for a treaty to be negotiated post-Copenhagen.

Although a political outcome in Copenhagen should be easier to achieve than a legal agreement, it will still be difficult and will require significant compromises by all sides. The basic elements of the Copenhagen outcome could include:

A long-term goal, expressed as a limit to global temperature increase (eg 2 degrees), greenhouse gas concentrations (eg 450 parts per million) and/or long-term emission reductions (eg emission reductions of 50% by 2050) .
Mid-term emission reduction targets for developed countries, expressed either as an absolute number (eg reductions of 20% by 2020) or as a range (eg 16-23%).
Policies and measures by major developing countries such as China, India, Brazil, Indonesia and South Africa.
Financial commitments/pledges by Western countries to assist mitigation and adaptation actions by developing countries.
Decisions addressing adaptation, technology transfer, REDD (reductions in emissions from deforestation and degradation), mechanisms (possibly including new rules for the CDM and for land-use change), and capacity-building.

Given the current state of the negotiations (which remain bogged down), an outcome along these lines remains a very ambitious objective for Copenhagen, even if it is reflected “only” in COP decisions rather than in a new legal agreement.

How much does the legal status of the Copenhagen outcome matter? For years, academics have been debating the merits of ’soft’ versus ‘hard’ law. Now, this issue has moved front and center in the climate negotiations.

Coming from academia, where some regard international law as a sham and many others question the benefits of hard law over soft law, it is touching to see the faith that climate negotiators have in the power of legal form. Indeed, virtually the only point on which all of the participants in the negotiating process seem to agree is that a legal agreement would be significantly stronger than a political outcome.

On one side, developing countries think that it is essential that developed country emission targets be legally binding, as well as the financial commitments by OECD countries to provide assistance for mitigation and adaptation measures by developing countries. Conversely, developing countries remain adamant about not accepting legal commitments themselves. On the other side, developed countries are equally adamant that the ‘nationally appropriate mitigation actions’ (NAMAs) of developing countries be ‘internationalised’ as legal commitments

In general, this belief in the importance of legal form is independent of the agreement’s compliance mechanism (although most agree that a compliance system would further strengthen the agreement’s force). The agreement’s legal status is itself seen as crucial in providing an assurance that countries will do what they say.

Entrepreneurial spirit

Small solutions will be key to tackling climate change, Sir David King says ahead of his role as a judge on TV channel CNBC’s Good Entrepreneur competition this month.

He believes two factors will determine which of three young entrepreneurs – Craig White, Mathew Holloway and Marco Cremona – win the event.

Sir David is one of five judges assessing the three finalists in a programme being broadcast across Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Dave_Good_entrepreneur

The three big ideas could reduce water use in hotels, improve building insulation using straw and hemp, and cut the energy used by air conditioning systems by 90 per cent.

Sir David believes the private sector has a crucial role to play in cutting global emissions but that governments must encourage them by creating a level regulatory playing field.

“The winning entry will have a significant impact on this global problem,” he says. “For the private sector, getting solutions to the market is the real key operation and of course, wealth creation will come out of that process.”

The winner will need to show that his product is technologically feasible, marketable and economically competitive, Sir David stresses. And it will need to be sufficiently sturdy to be used by many people, or be sufficiently adaptable for large-scale use in different countries.

“Many of these small solutions are going to be key,” Sir David says.

The programme will be broadcast on November 26 and November 28. In the UK, CNBC is available on Sky and on the CNBC website but not on Freeview. The channel is more readily available elsewhere in Europe and in the US.

The best entrepreneur

Small solutions will be key to tackling climate change, Sir David King says ahead of his role as a judge on TV channel CNBC’s Good Entrepreneur competition. The best entrepreneur CNBC TV

Economics of climate change

The Economics and Politics of Climate Change, edited by Smith School Fellow Dr Cameron Hepburn and Professor Dieter Helm, Professor of Energy Policy at the University of Oxford, Cameron_book_cover3 has been published by Oxford University Press.

It takes a cool-headed look at the obstacles hampering agreement on climate change, examing the underlying economics and incentives faced by stakeholders and the technologies and policies governments can implement to shift our economies from high to low carbon.

The book brings together leading climate change economists and policy experts. Among the various contributions, a host of positive suggestions are set out as to how to build a post Kyoto framework.

Inside the book:

1: Dieter Helm and Cameron Hepburn: Introduction
Part One: Revisiting the Economics of Climate Change
2: Dieter Helm: Climate-change policy: why has so little been achieved?
3: Cameron Hepburn and Nicholas Stern: The global deal on climate change
4: Scott Barrett: Climate treaties and the imperative of enforcement
5: Ross Garnaut, Stephen Howes, Frank Jotzo and Peter Sheehan: The implications of rapid development for climate-change mitigation
6: Kjell Arne Brekke and Olof Johansson-Stenman: The behavioural economics of climate change
Part Two: The Global Players and Agreements
7: Paul Collier, Gordon Conway and Anthony Venables: Climate change and Africa
8: Jiahua Pan, Jonathan Phillips and Ying Chen: China’s balance of emissions embodied in trade: approaches to measurement and allocating international responsibility
9: Vijay Joshi and Urjit R. Patel: India and climate-change mitigation
10: Robert N. Stavins: Addressing climate change with a comprehensive US cap-and-trade system
11: Dieter Helm: EU climate-change policy: a critique
Part Three: Low-carbon Technologies
12: Dieter Helm: Nuclear power, climate change, and energy policy
13: Howard Herzog: Carbon dioxide capture and storage
14: Richard Green: Climate-change mitigation from renewable energy: its contribution and cost
15: Krister Andersson, Andrew J. Plantinga, and Kenneth R. Richards: The national inventory approach for international forest-carbon sequestration management
16: David G. Victor: On the Regulation of Geoengineering
17: Steven Sorrell: Improving energy efficiency: hidden costs and unintended consequences
Part Four: National and International Instruments
18: Cameron Hepburn: Carbon taxes, emissions trading and hybrid schemes
19: Gernot Wagner, Nathaniel Keohane, Annie Petsonk, and James Wang: Docking into a global carbon market: Clean Investment Budgets to finance low-carbon economic development
20: Cameron Hepburn: International carbon finance and the Clean Development Mechanism
Part Five: Institutional Architecture
21: Joanna Depledge and Farhana Yamin: The global climate-change regime: a defence
22: Arunabha Ghosh and Ngaire Woods: Governing climate change: lessons from other governance regimes

Latest News

China Central TV – Is our cold snap abnormal?
The very cold weather we have recently been experiencing across parts of the UK and [...]
Smith School Fellow wins Chartered Management Institute Award
Dr Mick Blowfield, Research Fellow at the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, has [...]
World oil reserves are now beyond tipping point
Professor Sir David King has published an analysis of the oil market in Nature this [...]
Gas-to-liquid technology – A solid alternative to oil-derived transport fuels?
With 90% of transport fuels being oil-derived, uncertainty around depletion levels of conventional oil reserves [...]

Upcoming Events

Recent Events