An ethical approach to climate adaptation finance

This article develops a framework of procedural and distributive justice specifically tailored to the international-level funding of adaptation based on the assumptions that the ethical contents of such funding should consist of a fair process which involves all relevant parties, that adaptation funds should be raised according to the responsibility for climate impacts, and that the funds raised should be allocated by putting the most vulnerable first. In particular, after underlining the usefulness and possibilities of an ethical approach to climate adaptation finance, the article, in defining the framework of justice, first explores and justifies principles of procedural and distributive justice, and on their basis advances fairness and equity criteria that serve as benchmarks for assessing the ethical contents of international adaptation funding. Then, in order to test the robustness and investigative potential of the framework of justice developed, the article uses its fairness and equity criteria to evaluate the procedural and distributive justness of some climate adaptation finance architectures.     

印度应对气候变化国家方案简析

2008年6月印度政府发布了《气候变化国家行动方案》,阐明了印度应对气候变化的原则立场以及减缓和适应措施。方案中明确指出发展中国家是气候变化的最大受害者,发达国家应该承担温室气体减排的责任和义务;由于近年印度排放不断上升,方案也着重提出了提高能效、大力发展可再生能源等措施。与我国发布的《中国应对气候变化国家方案》进行对比,印度国家行动方案中的一些观点和措施值得我国研究和借鉴,该方案为我国进一步提出应对策略、加强国际合作提供了参考。     

Distributive justice in global climate finance – Recipients’ climate vulnerability and the allocation of climate funds

The ‘climate justice’ lens is increasingly being used in framing discussions and debates on global climate finance. A variant of such justice – distributive justice – emphasises recipient countries’ vulnerability to be an important consideration in funding allocation. The extent to which this principle is pursued in practice has been of widespread and ongoing concerns. Empirical evidence in this regard however remains inadequate and methodologically weak. This research examined the effect of recipients’ climate vulnerability on the allocation of climate funds by controlling for other commonly-identified determinants. A dynamic panel regression method based on Generalised Method of Moments (GMM) was used on a longitudinal dataset, containing approved funds for more than 100,000 projects covering three areas of climate action (mitigation, adaptation, and overlap) in 133 countries over two decades (2000–2018). Findings indicated a non-significant effect of recipients’ vulnerability on mitigation funding, but significant positive effects on adaptation and overlap fundings. ‘Most vulnerable’ countries were likely to receive higher amounts of these two types of funding than the ‘least vulnerable’ countries. All these provided evidence of distributive justice. However, the relationship between vulnerability and funding was parabolic, suggesting ‘moderately vulnerable’ countries likely to receive more funding than the ‘most vulnerable’ countries. Whilst, for mitigation funding, this observation was not a reason for concern, for adaptation and overlap fundings this was not in complete harmony with distributive justice. Paradoxically, countries with better investment readiness were likely to receive more adaptation and overlap funds. In discordance with distributive justice, countries within the Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia regions, despite their higher climatic vulnerabilities, were likely to receive significantly less adaptation and overlap fundings. Effects of vulnerability were persistent, and past funding had significant effects on current funding. These, coupled with the impact of readiness, suggested a probable Low Funding Trap for the world’s most vulnerable countries. The overarching conclusion is that, although positive changes have occurred since the 2015 Paris Agreement, considerable challenges to distributive justice remain. Significant data and methodological challenges encountered in the research and their implications are also discussed.     

“A convenient truth”: air travel passengers’ willingness to pay to offset their CO<Subscript>2</Subscript> emissions

Several economic reviews demonstrate the substantial costs related to climate change and consequently call for early action. These reviews, however, have been limited to measuring ‘objective’ risks and expected material damage related to climate change. The ‘subjective’ perceived risk of climate change and society’s willingness to pay (WTP) to avoid these risks are expected to provide an important additional motivation for direct action. We investigate whether and why air travel passengers—an increasingly important source of greenhouse gas emissions—are supportive of measures that increase the cost of their travel based on the polluter pays principle and compensate the damage caused by their flight. Compared to the results of the few previous studies that have elicited WTP estimates for climate policy more generally, our results appear to be at the lower end of the scale, while a comparison to estimates of the social cost of carbon shows that the average WTP estimate in this study is close to the estimated marginal damage cost. Although significant differences are found between travellers from Europe, North America, Asia and the rest of the world, we show that there exists a substantial demand for climate change mitigation action. The positive risk premium over and above the expected property damage cost assessments should be accounted for more explicitly in economic reviews as it will add to the burden of proof of direct action. Measurements of passenger WTP will help policy makers to design effective financial instruments aimed at discouraging climate-unfriendly travel activities as well as to generate funds for the measures directed at climate change mitigation and adaptation. Based on stated WTP by travellers to offset their greenhouse gas emissions, funds in the order of magnitude of €23 billion could be generated annually to finance climate change mitigation activities.     

Comparing public rationales for justice trade-offs in mitigation and adaptation climate policy dilemmas

Despite a great deal of research on public perceptions of climate change science, very little empirical work has attempted to investigate how members of the lay public might evaluate the justice dilemmas inherent within climate policy decision-making. This exploratory study contrasts arguments about justice from a mitigation perspective, with those from an adaptation perspective and draws insights about the contours of politically acceptable climate policy. Using think-aloud protocols and a structured elicitation approach with members of the lay public to generate quantitative and qualitative data, this study suggests that the two types of climate policy trigger different sets of arguments about justice. When asked about mitigation burden-sharing participants overwhelmingly invoke arguments about causality. In contrast, in discussions of adaptation participants emphasized the needs of the afflicted parties and their ability to cope. Furthermore, social and spatial distances were not a factor in allocation of mitigation burdens, but were used to discount the distribution of compensation towards adaptation. These initial data about public perceptions of justice in this area suggest that the public would view adaptation and mitigation as complements not substitutes. These findings also highlight the importance of exploring public reactions to the sub-components of climate policy individually.     

A new look at climate equity in the UNFCCC

Equity has been at the core of the global climate debate since its inception over two decades ago, yet the current negotiations toward an international climate agreement in 2015 provide a new and critical opportunity to make forward progress on the difficult web of equity issues. These negotiations and the discussions about equity are taking place in a context that has shifted: all countries will be covered under a new agreement; growing climate impacts are being felt, especially by the most vulnerable; and there is an emergence of new institutions and increasing complexity in the international climate regime. Innovative thinking on equity, including which countries should take action and how, is therefore essential to finalizing an agreement by 2015. A broader, deeper, and more holistic view of equity is necessary, one that sees equity as a multi-dimensional challenge to be solved across all the facets of the international climate process.

Policy relevance

This article is relevant to policy makers following the development of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform as it prepares the way for a new agreement in 2015. The article focuses specifically on the issues most relevant to the debate around equity in the negotiations and how that debate is evolving with the expansion of the UNFCCC. It explains the current state of the negotiations and what issues are on the negotiating table, including the fact that negotiations on equity are now much broader than the mitigation commitments, to include the possible ‘equity reference framework’, concerns relating to adaptation and loss and damage, and the need for ambition in terms of mitigation and finance support.     

适应气候变化政策机制的国际经验与启示

中国高度重视适应气候变化工作,实行减缓与适应并重的应对气候变化原则,已出台适应气候变化相关的战略、规划等一系列政策文件。但总体来看,中国适应气候变化政策与行动尚处于起步阶段,面临着法规制度缺位、监测评估不足、组织协调机制不完善等挑战,适应气候变化政策的类型、数量和力度都明显弱于减缓。为完善中国适应气候变化政策与机制的框架设计,文中梳理了相关研究、《联合国气候变化框架公约》下的适应气候变化国际机制及主要国家经验,提出了一套完整闭环的适应气候变化核心决策流程及关键支撑机制,并重点从开展法制建设、制定适应战略（计划）、建立监测评估机制、构建协调机制和完善资金机制等五方面,归纳了主要国家的经验与启示,最终研究提出完善我国适应气候变化政策与机制框架设计的建议,包括加快建立和完善适应气候变化法制建设、加快构建国家适应气候变化的政策体系、加快完善国家适应气候变化的机制设计、加强适应气候变化支撑能力建设、推动适应气候变化的国际合作等。     

Climate justice and global cities: Mapping the emerging discourses

Ever since climate change came to be a matter of political concern, questions of justice have been at the forefront of academic and policy debates in the international arena. Curiously, as attention has shifted to other sites and scales of climate change politics matters of justice have tended to be neglected. In this paper, we examine how discourses of justice are emerging within urban responses to climate change. Drawing on a database of initiatives taking place in 100 global cities and qualitative case-study research in Philadelphia, Quito and Toronto, we examine how notions of distributive and procedural justice are articulated in climate change projects and plans in relation to both adaptation and mitigation. We find that there is limited explicit concern with justice at the urban level. However, where discourses of justice are evident there are important differences emerging between urban responses to adaptation and mitigation, and between those in the north and in the south. Adaptation responses tend to stress the distribution of ‘rights’ to protection, although those in the South also stress the importance of procedural justice. Mitigation responses also stress ‘rights’ to the benefits of responding to climate change, with limited concern for ‘responsibilities’ or for procedural justice. Intriguingly, while adaptation responses tend to stress the rights of individuals, we also find discourses of collective rights emerging in relation to mitigation.     

An initial scoping of transitional justice for global climate governance

Geopolitical changes combined with the increasing urgency of ambitious climate action have re-opened debates about justice and international climate policy. Tensions about historical responsibility have been particularly difficult and could intensify with increased climate impacts and as developing countries face mounting pressure to take mitigation action. Climate change is not the only time humans have faced historically rooted, collective action challenges involving justice disputes. Practices and tools from transitional justice have been used in over 30 countries across a range of conflicts at the interface of historical responsibility and imperatives for collective futures. Central to this body of theory and experience is the need to reflect both backwards- and forwards-oriented elements in efforts to build social solidarity. Lessons from transitional justice theory and practice have not been systematically explored in the climate context. This article conceptually examines the potential of transitional justice practices to inform global climate governance by looking at the structural similarities and differences between the global climate regime and traditional transitional justice contexts. It then identifies a suite of common transitional justice practices and assesses their potential applicability in the climate context.

POLICY RELEVANCE

• Justice disputes, including about historical responsibility and future climate actions, are long-standing in the climate context and could intensify with increased climate impacts and broadened mitigation pressures.

• Lessons from efforts to use transitional justice mechanisms could provide insight into strategies for balancing recognition of harms rooted in the past, while creating stronger future-oriented collective action.

• Several areas of transitional justice practice including: the combination of amnesties and litigation, truth commissions, reparations and institutional change could provide useful insights for the climate context.

     

The economics of boldness: equity,action, and hope

Equity is usually interpreted in terms of the concept of justice, such that an equitable share of the atmospheric space is understood in terms of past emissions. This emphasizes the collective nature of sharing the burden of mitigation and the duty to act for those who have emitted the most. An alternative is considered: the aggregate costs and benefits to all Parties that could result from both increasing the level of collective ambition and implementing a climate regime that supports bold actions across all Parties. The regional impacts and carbon flow costs across differentiated scenarios are assessed and it is argued that the majority of developing-country Parties would be better off if a high ambition outcome to which all contributed, but some more than others. Moreover, those with middle or low emissions would have proportionally more to gain (or lose) relative to the level of ambition compared to those that have had higher emissions. The climate regime should be built on the principle of common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities (CBDR&RC), in which all act early even if some do much more; one that accounts for justice but does not forget hope.

Policy relevance

Differing interpretations of equity and the principles of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are discussed, with a focus on how these can enhance or hinder collective action. Whilst the climate change negotiations are usually taken as games in which one party gains and another loses, and interactions are dogged by continuous conflict, it is explored instead how negotiation responses can be framed in terms of cooperation. This would emphasize the gains that could be achieved by common but differentiated collective action, which could result in a collective avoidance of impacts. The possibilities that this shift of perspective could bring are explored by comparing costs under global cooperation (or lack of it). It is found that cooperation reduces the total costs for these regions. Thus, thinking in terms of cooperation focuses the options for negotiation on the means and interpretations of the UNFCCC principles that spur action and avoid climate impacts through collective action.     

Assessment of the climate preparedness of 30 urban areas in the UK

Cities are increasingly aware of the need to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to changes in weather patterns leading to the production of urban climate change plans. The few existing systematic studies of these plans have focused on either adaptation or mitigation issues, and are typically based on surveys completed by city officials rather than analysis of documented evidence. To gain insight into the status of adaptation and mitigation action across the UK, climate change documents from 30 urban areas (representing ~28 % of the UK’s population) were analysed. An Urban Climate Change Preparedness Score, which could be applied to other urban areas outside the UK, has been devised for comparative analysis. This analysis characterizes progress against (i) Assessment, (ii) Planning, (iii) Action, and (iv) Monitoring, for both adaptation and mitigation. The Preparedness Score allows a quantitative comparison of climate change strategies across the urban areas analysed. This methodology can be transferred to other countries and makes an international comparison of urban areas and their climate change adaptation and mitigation plans possible. We found that all areas acknowledge climate change being a threat and that adaptation and mitigation planning and action is required. However, two urban areas did not have official adaptation or mitigation plans. Typically, mitigation activities across all cities were more advanced than adaptation plans. Emissions reduction targets ranged from 10 %–80 % with differing baselines, timeframes and scopes, for defining and meeting these targets. Similar variability was observed across adaptation plans. Several reasons for these differences are considered, but particularly notable is that a combination of incentives and regulation seem to stimulate more comprehensive strategies and action in many urban areas.     

Change and transition: the climate of Ukraine's agri-food sector

The agri-food sector has contributed significantly to climate change, but has an important role to play in climate change mitigation and adaptation. The agri-food sector has many potential win–win–win strategies that benefit mitigation and adaptation, and also deliver gains in rural income and land management. Post-Soviet transition economies provide a good model for understanding some of the barriers to adaptation and mitigation in the agri-food sector, due to their significant unmet agricultural potential combined with inefficient energy use. Ukraine is used as a case study to explore the barriers and bridges to addressing climate change in a post-Soviet state. A variety of stakeholders and farmers were interviewed about mitigation and adaptation and the current response capacity. Grounded theory analysis revealed themes that are perceived to function as barriers including: pandering, oligarchs and market interventions; corruption and transparency; and survival, freedom and law enforcement. Foreign involvement and investment emerged as a bridge to overcoming these barriers. The results indicate that significant progress in climate mitigation and adaptation in the agri-food sector in Ukraine will only be achieved if some of the wider political and social issues facing the country can be addressed.

Policy relevance

Ukraine has considerable potential for both agricultural production and climate change mitigation; however, this potential can only be met by identifying and addressing barriers currently impeding progress. This article found that barriers to effective climate change are perceived to stem from wider post-Soviet transition issues. These wider issues need to be addressed during the implementation of climate policy since they are viewed to be important by a wide variety of stakeholders. International negotiations have provided little incentive for Ukraine to achieve effective mitigation, and corrupt practices further impair mitigation projects. In addition, export quotas currently function as a maladaptive climate policy and reduce both farmers' capacity in Ukraine and international food security. Meanwhile, foreign involvement, not just financial investment, but also the investment of ideas can provide a bridge to effective climate policy. The international community needs to provide a legal framework and assist Ukraine in adopting transparent processes in order to successfully execute climate policy.     

Post-Kyoto greenhouse gas inventories: production versus consumption

For the long-term stabilization of greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations it is important that post-Kyoto policy has broad participation to ensure environmental integrity. Many post-Kyoto frameworks have been debated, but surprisingly approaches that focus on consumption have received little attention in the climate change literature despite broader interest in other areas. In this article we extend the argument for constructing GHG inventories using a country’s consumption rather than production. First, we argue that constructing GHG inventories using a country’s economic activity instead of geographic territory solves allocation issues for international activities such as international transportation and carbon capture and storage. Second, we argue that consumption-based GHG inventories have many advantages over production-based inventories. The main advantages are to address carbon leakage, reduce the importance of emission commitments for developing countries, increase options for mitigation, encourage environmental comparative advantage, address competitiveness concerns, and naturally encourage technology diffusion.     

Experiences of host communities with carbon market projects: towards multi-level climate justice

The literature on equity and justice in climate change mitigation has largely focused on North–South relations and equity between states. However, some initiatives (e.g. the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation programme (REDD), and voluntary carbon markets (VCMs)) are already establishing multi-level governance structures that involve communities from developing countries in global mitigation efforts. This poses new equity and justice dilemmas: how the burdens and benefits of mitigation are shared across various levels and how host communities are positioned in multi-level governance structures. A review of the existing literature is used to distill a framework for distinguishing between four axes of climate justice from the perspective of communities. Empirical evidence from African and Asian carbon market projects is used to assess the distributive and procedural justice implications for host communities. The evidence suggests that host communities often benefit little from carbon market projects and find it difficult to protect their interests. Capacity building, attention to local power relations, supervision of business practices, promotion of projects with primarily development aims and an active involvement of non-state actors as bridges between local communities and the national/international levels could potentially contribute towards addressing some of the key justice concerns.Policy relevance International negotiations on the institutional frameworks that are envisaged to govern carbon markets are proceeding at a rather slow pace. As a consequence, host countries and private-sector actors are making their own arrangements to safeguard the interests of local communities. While several standards have emerged to guide carbon market activity on the ground, distributive as well as procedural justice concerns nevertheless remain salient. Four empirical case studies across Asia and Africa show that within the multi-scale and multi-actor carbon market governance, local-level actors often lack sufficient agency to advance their claims and protect their interests. This evidence suggests that ameliorating policy reforms are needed to enhance the positioning of local communities. Doing so is important to ensure future acceptability of carbon market activity in potential host communities as well as for ensuring their broader legitimacy.     

Citizens' perceptions of justice in international climate policy: an empirical analysis

Relying on a recent survey of more than 3400 participants from China, Germany, and the US, this article empirically analyses citizens' perceptions of key guiding principles for sharing mitigation costs across countries, justification of climate policy and trust in climate policy. Our findings suggest that the ranking of the main principles for burden-sharing is identical in China, Germany, and the US: accountability followed by capability, egalitarianism, and sovereignty. Thus, on a general level, citizens across these countries seem to have a common (normative) understanding of fairness. We therefore find no evidence that citizens' (stated) fairness preferences are detrimental to future burden-sharing agreements. In all three countries a majority of citizens considers international climate policy to be justified, but citizens' perceptions differ across specific items and countries. Finally, a substantial portion of citizens in all countries exhibit a lack of trust in international climate agreements.

Policy relevance

Disagreement over the distribution of mitigation costs across countries is blocking current negotiations about a new international climate change agreement to be adopted in 2015. At the heart of this disagreement are different perceptions of distributive justice among those involved in climate policy making. Our findings show that there is no difference in the ranking of fairness principles across citizens in China, Germany, and the US, suggesting that the common ground for crafting a future agreement is larger than expected. In particular, the accountability principle should weigh heavily when deciding on the burden-sharing. In addition, our findings suggest that in order to gain support among citizens, international climate policy may need to take measures to improve trust.     

Felt responsibility and climate engagement: Distinguishing adaptation from mitigation

Policy makers and citizens must choose from among a growing variety of strategic options as they try to cope optimally with climate change. As a means of more accurately predicting different types of climate change engagement, we empirically distinguish individuals’ felt responsibility for mitigation (FRm) from felt responsibility for adaptation (FRa), and assess support for different climate action strategies (mitigation and adaptation). We surveyed two U.S. samples two months apart, and the replication study confirmed Study 1′s findings of differing predictive powers for FRm vs. FRa. Each type of felt responsibility, controlling for the other, served as a mediator between belief in global warming (as well as belief in anthropogenic cause of climate change) and its corresponding climate action strategy (mitigation vs. adaptation). FRa predicted adaptation measures but not mitigation measures, while FRm predicted mitigation measures more strongly than it predicted adaptation but did predict both action strategies. We also found important individual differences: people’s disposition toward behaving proactively correlated positively with all types of climate engagement, and political orientation (liberal/conservative ideology) interacted with climate action strategy (mitigation vs. adaptation) in predicting all engagement variables. Comparing levels of support across the political spectrum, the mitigation measures were highly polarizing, while the adaptation measures were less divisive.     

Assessing mitigation-adaptation scenarios for reducing catastrophic climate risk

Countries can use both mitigation and adaptation strategies to protect their citizens from catastrophic risk posed by climate change (e.g., shift in the jet stream). A nation can mitigate by reducing CO₂ emissions, which reduces the probability of a catastrophic event; it can adapt by altering the infrastructure so that damages can be reduced in the event a catastrophe is realized. Herein we add to the current literature by extending the endogenous risk framework into a dynamic framework permitting analysis of both mitigation and adaptation while allowing for the dynamic process of global climate change. Our results suggest adaptation to catastrophe is a small fraction of the national climate protection budget relative to mitigation when nations cooperate fully, when damages are both continuous and catastrophic, and when nations have a short planning horizon. Adaptation becomes more important relative to mitigation when nations are unlikely to cooperate, when damages are mainly catastrophic, or when the nation’s planning horizon increases.     

Decision support for climate change adaptation planning in the US: why it needs a coordinated internet-based practitioners’ network

Decision support resources are emerging across the United States to address the adaptation and mitigation challenges associated with climate variability and change. In theory, climate-related decision support identifies the need to move beyond the linear dissemination of information from experts to decision-makers. Interviews with researchers and federal program managers, however, show that in practice there are still wide gaps between the development of climate science and its application. Lessons learned in two example cases of decision support experiments are discussed to highlight some of the on-going challenges in applying climate science, e.g. defining decision support, involving decision-makers, and determining effectiveness. The published literature also shows these reoccurring challenges but emphasizes more collaboration between science and decision-makers as this improves the relevance, compatibility, and accessibility of climate science information and can increase users’ receptiveness. This article proposes that the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) can help the development of decision support resources, in one way, by coordinating an Internet-based practitioners’ network. A coordinated network could provide opportunities for climate-related decision support practitioners to build collaborative partnerships, share lessons-learned, provide feedback to the USGCRP, and thereby assist the transition of science into decision-making processes to better address adaptation planning.     

Accounting for impacts due to climate change in GHG mitigation burden sharing

This study focusing on the climate equity debate in the context of GHG mitigation explores design of a framework that is based on the ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ principle of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Besides incorporating the widely recognized differences among countries such as current and historic GHG emissions and capabilities, the framework also accounts for their relative vulnerabilities to climate change. The study argues that since climate change impacts are akin to global public bad, compensation, especially for the poorer nations who are also the worst victims of the climate change impacts, could be conceived in the form of greater share in the GHG emission rights. This, it is argued, would provide the much needed space to grow for the poorer countries and facilitate enhancement of their adaptive capacity to face climate and other threats. It is also argued that the framework results accord with one of the welfare principles, the Weak Equity Axiom (WEA) (Sen, A. K. (1973). On economic inequality. Delhi: Oxford University Press), and yield an equitable distribution of burden.

Policy relevance

The present study attempts to inform the equity debate in the international climate negotiations. The multi-criteria framework of the study suggests a means to incorporate various national attributes which could result in an equitable sharing of the GHG mitigation burden among countries. The study results highlight that impacts due to climate change could provide an important and equitable basis for burden sharing in the present and in future. The study also highlights the significance of scientific literature on climate change impact assessments in informing the future policy dialogue in the climate negotiations.     

The interpretation and highlights on mitigation of climate change in IPCC AR6 WGIII report北大核心CSCD

2022年4月4日,IPCC第六次评估报告第三工作组《气候变化2022:减缓气候变化》报告和决策者摘要发布。报告全面评估了2010年以来减缓气候变化领域的最新科学进展,为国际社会深度认识和理解全球温室气体排放情况、不同温升水平下的减排路径以及可持续发展背景下的气候变化减缓和适应行动等提供了重要科学依据。基于报告主要结论,围绕温室气体排放的区域差异、减缓路径分类、与土地利用相关的排放评估及CO去除技术评估等方面的亮点,文中提出在应对气候变化减缓政策行动中,中国应坚定“双碳”战略目标,在综合考虑经济发展阶段和资源禀赋差异背景下,将可持续发展、公平和消除贫困植根于社会发展愿景中实施减缓路径,并加快提升气候变化综合评估核心科学技术的研发进度,以进一步提升国际影响力和话语权。