Targeting carbon dioxide removal in the European Union

In principle, many climate policymakers have accepted that large-scale carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is necessary to meet the Paris Agreement’s mitigation targets, but they have avoided proposing by whom CDR might be delivered. Given its role in international climate policy, the European Union (EU) might be expected to lead the way. But among EU climate policymakers so far there is little talk on CDR, let alone action. Here we assess how best to ‘target’ CDR to motivate EU policymakers exploring which CDR target strategy may work best to start dealing with CDR on a meaningful scale. A comprehensive CDR approach would focus on delivering the CDR volumes required from the EU by 2100, approximately at least 50 Gigatonnes (Gt) CO₂, according to global model simulations aiming to keep warming below 2°C. A limited CDR approach would focus on an intermediate target to deliver the CDR needed to reach ‘net zero emissions’ (i.e. the gross negative emissions needed to offset residual positive emissions that are too expensive or even impossible to mitigate). We argue that a comprehensive CDR approach may be too intimidating for EU policymakers. A limited CDR approach that only addresses the necessary steps to reach the (intermediate) target of ‘net zero emissions’ is arguably more achievable, since it is a better match to the existing policy paradigm and would allow for a pragmatic phase-in of CDR while avoiding outright resistance by environmental NGOs and the broader public.

Key policy insights

• Making CDR an integral part of EU climate policy has the potential to significantly reshape the policy landscape.

• Burden sharing considerations would probably play a major role, with comprehensive CDR prolonging the disparity and tensions between progressives and laggards.

• Introducing limited CDR in the context of ‘net zero’ pathways would retain a visible primary focus on decarbonization but acknowledge the need for a significant enhancement of removals via ‘natural’ and/or ‘engineered’ sinks.

• A decarbonization approach that intends to lead to a low level of ‘residual emissions’ (to be tackled by a pragmatic phase-in of CDR) should be the priority of EU climate policy.

     

Climate variability and irregular migration to the European Union

The so-called ‘European Migrant Crisis’ has been blamed on armed conflict and economic misery, particularly in the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa. Some have suggested that this process has been exacerbated by climate change and weather events. In this paper, we evaluate these claims, focusing on the role of droughts in influencing irregular migration flows to the European Union. Drawing on temporally disaggregated data on the detection of unauthorized migrants at EU external borders, we examine how weather shocks affect irregular migration. We show that weather events may indeed influence migration. Yet, in contradiction to the findings from recent research, we find no evidence that a drought in a sending country increases unauthorized migration to the EU. If anything, and while not entirely conclusive, the incidence of drought seems rather to exert a negative, albeit moderate, impact on the size of migration flows, in particular for countries dependent on agriculture. Conversely, higher levels of rainfall increase migration. We interpret this as evidence that international migration is cost-prohibitive, and that adverse weather shocks reinforce existing financial barriers to migration.     

Notice

After eighteen years of effort, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES (AAS) has become an international journal, playing a valuable role in promoting the exchange of scientific views.Beginning in the second half of 2002, we will create two new sections in AAS. The first is " Letters", which will allow for the quick publication of creative works. The published works could be preliminary research or prototypes, such as scientific hypotheses, new diagnostic tools, important findings or new atmospheric phenomena that have yet to be introduced in the literature. In this respect, some new ideas- even controversial ones - may lead to the stimulation of discussions, arguments and even critiques that are very much needed in today's research environment. More complete works could be submitted later for publication in AAS.     

Notice

After eighteen years of effort, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES (AAS)has become an international journal, playing a valuable role in promoting the exchange ofscientific views.     

The safe development paradox: An agent-based model for flood risk under climate change in the European Union

With increasing flood risk due to climate change and socioeconomic trends, governments are under pressure to continue implementing flood protection measures, such as dikes, to reduce flood risk. However, research suggests that a sole focus on government-funded flood protection leads to an adverse increase in exposure as people and economic activities tend to concentrate in protected areas. Moreover, governmental flood protection can reduce the incentive for autonomous adaptation by local households, which paradoxically results in more severe consequences if an extreme flood event occurs. This phenomenon is often referred to as the ‘safe development paradox’ or ‘levee effect’ and is generally not accounted for in existing flood risk models used to assess developments in future flood risk under climate change. In this study we assess the impact of extreme flood events for the European Union using a large-scale agent-based model (ABM). We quantify how the safe development paradox affects (1) population growth and the increase in exposed property values, (2) the reduction in investments to flood-proof buildings as public protection increases, and (3) the increase in potential damage should a flood occur. For this analysis, we apply an ABM that integrates the dynamic behaviour of governments and residents into a large-scale flood risk assessment framework, in which we include estimates of changing population growth. We find that the impact of extreme flood events increases considerably when governments provide high protection levels, especially in large metropolitan areas. Moreover, we demonstrate how policy that stimulates the flood-proofing of buildings can largely counteract the effects of the safe development paradox.     

Health co-benefits and the development of climate change mitigation policies in the European Union

The 2015 Paris Agreement requires increasingly ambitious emissions reduction efforts from its member countries. Accounting for ancillary positive health outcomes (health co-benefits) that result from implementing climate change mitigation policies can provide Parties to the Paris Agreement with a sound rationale for introducing stronger mitigation strategies. Despite this recognition, a knowledge gap exists on the role of health co-benefits in the development of climate change mitigation policies. To address this gap, the case study presented here investigates the role of health co-benefits in the development of European Union (EU) climate change mitigation policies through analysis and consideration of semi-structured interview data, government documents, journal articles and media releases. We find that while health co-benefits are an explicit consideration in the development of EU climate change mitigation policies, their influence on final policy outcomes has been limited. Our analysis suggests that whilst health co-benefits are a key driver of air pollution mitigation policies, climate mitigation policies are primarily driven by other factors, including economic costs and energy implications.

Key policy insights

• Health co-benefits are quantified and monetized as part of the development of EU climate change mitigation policies but their influence on the final policies agreed upon is limited.

• Barriers, such as the immediate economic costs associated with climate action, inhibit the influence of health co-benefits on the development of mitigation policies.

• Health co-benefits primarily drive the development of EU air pollution mitigation policies.

• The separation of responsibility for GHG and non-GHG emissions across Directorate Generals has decoupled climate change and air pollution mitigation policies, with consequences for the integration of health co-benefits in climate policy.

     

Climate change and river floods in the European Union: Socio-economic consequences and the costs and benefits of adaptation

This study presents the first appraisal of the socio-economic impacts of river floods in the European Union in view of climate and socio-economic changes. The assessment is based on two trajectories: (a) no adaptation, where the current levels of protection are kept constant, and (b) adaptation, where the level of protection is increased to defend against future flooding events. As a basis for our analysis we use an ensemble-based pan-European flood hazard assessment for present and future conditions. Socio-economic impacts are estimated by combining flood inundation maps with information on assets exposure and vulnerability. Ensemble-based results indicate that current expected annual population affected of ca. 200,000 is projected to increase up to 360,000 due to the effects of socio-economic development and climate change. Under the no adaptation trajectory current expected annual damages of €5.5 billion/year are projected to reach €98 billion/year by the 2080s due to the combined effects of socio-economic and climate change. Under the adaptation trajectory the avoided damages (benefits) amount to €53 billion/year by the 2080s. An analysis of the potential costs of adaptation associated with the increase in protection suggests that adaptation could be highly cost-effective. There is, however, a wide range around these central numbers reflecting the variability in projected climate. Analysis at the country level shows high damages, and by association high costs of adaptation, in the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Romania, Hungary and Czech Republic. At the country level, there is an even wider range around these central values, thus, pointing to a need to consider climate uncertainty in formulating practical adaptation strategies.     

Flood insurance arrangements in the European Union for future flood risk under climate and socioeconomic change

Flood risk will increase in many areas around the world due to climate change and increase in economic exposure. This implies that adequate flood insurance schemes are needed to adapt to increasing flood risk and to minimise welfare losses for households in flood-prone areas. Flood insurance markets may need reform to offer sufficient and affordable financial protection and incentives for risk reduction. Here, we present the results of a study that aims to evaluate the ability of flood insurance arrangements in Europe to cope with trends in flood risk, using criteria that encompass common elements of the policy debate on flood insurance reform. We show that the average risk-based flood insurance premium could double between 2015 and 2055 in the absence of more risk reduction by households exposed to flooding. We show that part of the expected future increase in flood risk could be limited by flood insurance mechanisms that better incentivise risk reduction by policyholders, which lowers vulnerability. The affordability of flood insurance can be improved by introducing the key features of public-private partnerships (PPPs), which include public reinsurance, limited premium cross-subsidisation between low- and high-risk households, and incentives for policyholder-level risk reduction. These findings were evaluated in a comprehensive sensitivity analysis and support ongoing reforms in Europe and abroad that move towards risk-based premiums and link insurance with risk reduction, strengthen purchase requirements, and engage in multi-stakeholder partnerships.     

Regional- and district-level drivers of timber harvesting in European Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the forestry sector in Russia underwent substantial changes: the state forestry sector was decentralized, the timber industry was privatized, and timber use rights were allocated through short- and long-term leases. To date, there has been no quantitative assessment of the drivers of timber harvesting in European Russia following these changes. In this paper we estimate an econometric model of timber harvesting using remote sensing estimations of forest disturbance from 1990–2000 to 2000–2005 as our dependent variable. We aggregate forest disturbance to administrative districts – equivalent to counties in the United States – and test the impact of several biophysical and economic factors on timber harvesting. Additionally, we examine the impact that regions – equivalent to states in the United States and the main level of decentralized governance in Russia – have on timber harvesting by estimating the influence of regional-level effects on forest disturbance in our econometric model. Russian regions diverged considerably in political and economic conditions after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the question is if these variations impacted timber harvesting after controlling for district-level biophysical and economic drivers. We find that the most important drivers of timber harvesting at the district level are road density, the percent of evergreen forest, and the total area of forest. The influence of these variables on timber harvesting changed over time and there was more harvesting closer to urban areas in 2000–2005. Even though district-level variables explain more than 70 percent of the variation in forest disturbance in our econometric model, we find that regional-level effects remain statistically significant. While we cannot identify the exact mechanism through which regional-level effects impact timber harvesting, our results suggest that sub-national differences can have a large and statistically significant impact on land-use outcomes and should be considered in policy design and evaluation.     

Notice of Dupilicate Submission

正Advances in Atmospheric Sciences regrets to note a case of duplicate submission.A paper was submitted to both Advances in Atmospheric Sciences and another international journal.It was accepted by the other journal in April 2013and published in printed version in August 2013,while it was also accepted by Advances in Atmospheric Sciences in May2013 and was supposed to be published online in September 2013.The editorial office makes the very strong statement that such duplication is utterly not acceptable for papers submitted to or published in Advances in Atmospheric Sciences.The editors will not accept any submissions from the authors of this paper for the next three years.A letter of notice is also issued to the chief editor of the other journal involved.     

Notice of duplicate submission

Advances in Atmospheric Sciences regrets to note a case of duplicate submission. A paper was submitted to both Advances in Atmospheric Sciences and another international journal. It was accepted by the other journal in April 2013 and published in printed version in August 2013, while it was also accepted by Advances in Atmospheric Sciences in May 2013 and was supposed to be published online in September 2013.     

Green hope or greenwash? The actions of the European Union at the World Summit on sustainable development

This article examines whether the European Union (EU) could be seen as a normative power at the recent World Summit on Sustainable Development. We explain how the EU operationalised its commitment to the concept of sustainable development before highlighting the impact the EU had on the final summit outcomes. It shows that although in many areas the EU was able to offer leadership, internal policy coherence prevented it fully being able to develop that role and thus fully promoting the norm of sustainable development.