Strong and rapid greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions, far beyond those currently committed to, are required to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. This allows no sector to maintain business as usual practices, while application of the precautionary principle requires avoiding a reliance on negative emission technologies. Animal to plant-sourced protein shifts offer substantial potential for GHG emission reductions. Unabated, the livestock sector could take between 37% and 49% of the GHG budget allowable under the 2°C and 1.5°C targets, respectively, by 2030. Inaction in the livestock sector would require substantial GHG reductions, far beyond what are planned or realistic, from other sectors. This outlook article outlines why animal to plant-sourced protein shifts should be taken up by the Conference of the Parties (COP), and how they could feature as part of countries’ mitigation commitments under their updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to be adopted from 2020 onwards. The proposed framework includes an acknowledgment of ‘peak livestock’, followed by targets for large and rapid reductions in livestock numbers based on a combined ‘worst first’ and ‘best available food’ approach. Adequate support, including climate finance, is needed to facilitate countries in implementing animal to plant-sourced protein shifts.
Key policy insights
Given the livestock sector’s significant contribution to global GHG emissions and methane dominance, animal to plant protein shifts make a necessary contribution to meeting the Paris temperature goals and reducing warming in the short term, while providing a suite of co-benefits.
Without action, the livestock sector could take between 37% and 49% of the GHG budget allowable under the 2°C and 1.5°C targets, respectively, by 2030.
Failure to implement animal to plant protein shifts increases the risk of exceeding temperate goals; requires additional GHG reductions from other sectors; and increases reliance on negative emissions technologies.
COP 24 is an opportunity to bring animal to plant protein shifts to the climate mitigation table.
Revised NDCs from 2020 should include animal to plant protein shifts, starting with a declaration of ‘peak livestock’, followed by a ‘worst first’ replacement approach, guided by ‘best available food’.
Transition to low carbon sea transport is a logical response to the extreme dependency of the Pacific Islands region on imported fossil fuel, its significant vulnerability to the effects of climate change and the critical shipping needs of Pacific Island countries (PICs). Building on previous work in low carbon sea transport in the Pacific, this paper further considers the barriers to achieving such transition by assessing, through a ‘post-Paris Agreement’ lens, the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) submitted by PICs and contrasting these to the near total lack of investment and planning for low carbon transition in the transport sector with the parallel occurrence in the electricity sector where ~USD 2 billion of donor investment is deployed or queued despite electricity using only ~20% of fossil fuel across the region. Consistent with recent international studies, inadequate and inappropriate financing and policy have been identified as dominant transition barriers for low carbon sea transport development in PICs. This paper further examines the regional level barriers to policy development, and finds them inhibited by the silo nature of the major regional actors. The implications that the Paris Agreement has for climate financing to support the essential research and capacity development needed to underpin a successful low carbon sea transport transition strategy at any useful scale and speed are also considered in this paper. 相似文献
United Nations climate change conferences have attracted an increasing number and range of observer participants, often outnumbering national delegates. The interactions between the formal and informal spaces of climate governance at the Conference of the Parties (COP) are explored by investigating why non-nation state actors (NNSAs) attend them and by measuring to what extent official UN Side Events provide relevant information for the formal negotiations. Based on primary empirical research at recent COPs, it is found that 60–75% of Side Events have related directly to items under negotiation in the post-2012 climate negotiations. In this regard, Side Events that facilitate informal exchange between stakeholders not only provide input into the negotiations but also allow issues beyond the realm of the negotiations to be discussed, reflecting the scope of climate change. Although Side Events are an effective forum to exchange ideas and network, their current format and purpose as being events ‘on the side’ does not offer a sufficient framework for coordination between the work of NNSAs and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process. 相似文献
The concept of ‘Great Powers’ extends well beyond its nineteenth century origins to current business in, for example, the EU, the UN Security Council, and the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Such core groups can be crucial to finding agreement in complex and fractured negotiations. Climate change was not initially seen as an issue for the Great Power-type architecture. The problem was of universal concern, requiring universal involvement. Moreover, climate's natural great powers (the EU, the US, China, Japan, Russia, Brazil, India, and Canada) split into three antagonistic camps: the EU pressing for sharp emissions reductions; the US, with the other developed powers, much more cautious; and China, India, and Brazil determined that action should be confined to the developed world. These divisions contributed hugely to the ineffectiveness of both the 1992 Rio convention and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. In addition, as non-Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD; particularly Chinese) emissions fast outgrew OECD emissions, their exclusion from any constraint became visibly untenable. So, from 2005 on, the Great Powers began to meet more closely in what became the Major Economies Forum. That cooperation contributed significantly to the 2009 Copenhagen Accord. The climate problem is of course far from being solved, but maintaining Great Power cooperation will be crucial to further progress. 相似文献
The objective of this paper is to assess recent developments and prospects for future changes in United States (US) climate strategy. In doing so, the paper explores some of the key factors that have shaped strategies and policies to date, distinguishing between factors related to institutional and governance structures, linkages between science and policy, energy technology and the role of interest groups. Against this background, the paper attempts to explore future development paths for US climate policy. More specifically, the paper assesses opportunities for policy changes compared to the preferences of the current administration, and the prospects for future linkages between US and international climate change strategies. In brief, the paper argues that substantial changes are unlikely to take place in the near to medium term, leaving open, however, the possibility of wide-ranging changes in domestic politics or major incidents that could facilitate a shift in the perceived need for near-term action. 相似文献