Brookings: Topics - Climate Change

International Actions to Support Green Growth Innovation Goals

Nathan Hultman, Jason Eis and Katherine Sierra — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 15:11:00 -0400

Achieving global goals for poverty reduction, economic growth and environmental health will require widespread innovation and implementation of new and appropriate “green growth” technologies. Establishing a sufficiently large suite of innovative technology options, suitable to diverse economies, and at the urgent pace required will involve unprecedented innovation activity not only from developed regions, but also from new clusters and enterprises in emerging economies and least developed countries. By linking national governments, the private sector and the international community, international cooperation can contribute substantively in five green innovation priority areas:

Cultivating innovation capacity and ecosystems in least developed countries (LDCs);
Facilitating and strengthening existing entrepreneurial cultures;
Significantly scaling up research and development (R&D) activities through competitive grants;
Encouraging financing for large-scale demonstration and deployment of complex but transformative new technologies; and
De-risking entrepreneurial investments and stimulating intellectual property (IP) sharing.

In this brief we describe several ways that international cooperation can play a critical role in facilitating this transformative process and outline six existing institutional structures that have been invoked as possible examples for scaling up to foster green innovation more broadly. Finally, we suggest several policy recommendations that are feasible in the near term.

Read the full paper »

Downloads

Download the full paper

Authors

Image Source: © Bogdan Cristel / Reuters

Pacific Islanders Lead Nansen Initiative Consultation on Cross-Border Displacement from Natural Disasters and Climate Change

Jane McAdam — Thu, 30 May 2013 10:00:00 -0400

Like its neighbors in the Pacific, the Cook Islands is no stranger to severe natural disasters. Pacific island countries are highly susceptible to increasingly frequent and extreme events, such as cyclones, tsunamis and landslides, as well as the slower-onset effects of climate change, such as rising sea levels, increased temperatures and coastal erosion.

Last week I was privileged to attend the first-ever regional consultation of the Nansen Initiative on Disaster-Induced Cross-Border Displacement, held in the Cook Islands in the Pacific. The consultation, hosted by the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands, brought together government officials from ten Pacific countries, as well as representatives from regional and international organizations, academia and civil society.

The issue of cross-border migration is always a sensitive one, and even more so when the prospective, permanent movement of whole communities is contemplated. While a key message from the meeting was that Pacific peoples wish to remain in their homes for as long as possible, there was recognition that some displacement and migration is inevitable. As the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands observed: ‘If we fail to plan, then we plan to fail.’

But while Pacific island countries are some of the most vulnerable to natural disasters and the impacts of climate change, especially in the longer-term, there was a striking focus on ‘self-help:’ the need to strengthen community resilience, raise awareness and increase preparedness. Participants identified initiatives at the community, national, regional and international levels that would facilitate adaptation and enable people to remain in their homes for as long as possible, while also developing strategies to enhance mobility for those who wished to move.

A set of action points was presented to Pacific leaders, who undertook to take them to other regional fora and to work towards realizing concrete outcomes.

Participants identified the need to educate both at-risk and potential host communities about the prospect of population movements, and to ensure that communities could participate fully in consultations about possible relocation strategies. They noted that a key challenge in the Pacific relates to customary land tenure and the shortage of alienable, freehold land, and that safeguards would need to be developed to prevent and solve conflicts over land and resources.

Participants noted the importance of training and education within their countries to equip people with the skills to work abroad, as well as to contribute to their own society while they remained there. In this regard, they encouraged States to review their admission and immigration policies to enable voluntary migration at an early stage, as well as mechanisms for temporary and permanent protection for those displaced by natural disasters. They recommended that States review their citizenship laws to ensure that dual nationality was permitted, to help safeguard the cultural identity of those who migrate on a permanent basis. They called on Pacific countries to draw on lessons from past experience and existing good practices to develop normative frameworks to address the protection needs of displaced or relocated populations, and to ensure that the human rights of those who move are fully respected.

It was notable, although not at all surprising to those who know the region, that the idea of a new ‘climate refugee’ treaty was never raised as a desirable option. While this is an oft-championed outcome within academic discourse (predominantly in Europe and North America, but also in Australia), it is wholly removed from the needs and desires of the Pacific peoples for whom it is assumed to be a solution. The ‘climate refugee’ framework has no purchase in the Pacific because it does not fit with the kind of movement we are likely to see, nor the self-help approach that Pacific peoples advocate.

It is essential to listen to what Pacific islanders themselves are calling for, rather than to assume what they need. Too often the ‘solutions’ thought up by the international community do not match the identified needs on the ground, and if we fail to listen, then we will end up with ill-fitting policies and mechanisms. As one participant noted, the international community can help to provide the ingredients, but not the recipe.

Indeed, the importance of holding the meeting within the Pacific region cannot be underestimated. Those who came across the world could see just how vulnerable atolls are to sea-level rise, and could get a sense of the great cultural and linguistic diversity of Pacific islanders. This was not a meeting in which the Pacific featured as an abstract, stereotypical example but as the lived experiences, concerns and ideas of Pacific peoples – from government, the churches, international organizations and non-governmental organizations.

People came to the table with an open mind to share experiences, not to negotiate from political perspectives. Government ministers talked movingly about their personal experiences of searching for missing relatives in the wake of natural disasters. An elderly Banaban woman’s memories of her relocation to Fiji as an eight-year-old child revealed the on-going trauma of displacement when it is not properly planned.

Participants also spoke of the tremendous resilience of Pacific communities, the strength and support of kinship networks, and the importance and success of regional approaches to disaster risk reduction, early warning systems, and embracing migration as an adaptation strategy.

The Pacific consultation showed the importance not only of consulting communities, but of doing so within their own region. A critical mass of participants, operating within a familiar environment, meant that people felt more comfortable sharing their opinions with each other and with the representatives from the ‘international community’. The meeting structure was shaped in conjunction with the host government and took into account familiar participatory models to encourage discussion. Prayers were said at the beginning and end of each day’s gathering; there was spontaneous singing at the end of the meeting; the poignancy of individual experiences of tsunamis and cyclones was brought home by the fact we were next to the sea and could see the tsunami evacuation route signs dotted along the island’s coastline. There was less scope for intimidation by foreign surroundings and customs, rushed meeting schedules, or geographical disconnect between the meeting location and the focus of the dialogue. Here, the Pacific was the centre, not Geneva or New York.

The importance of place also cannot be underestimated for the policymakers from outside the Pacific who came to the meeting. The consultation brought to life issues which may be difficult to grasp without having experienced first-hand life on a small atoll. The diversity of culture, the sense of Pacific community and solidarity, the commonality of experience and the willingness to learn and share were striking. This is a great strength of the Nansen Initiative’s regional consultation approach. Without a systematic approach like this, there is a risk that regional concerns become diluted or homogenized to some abstract ‘universal’ experience, and with the loss of nuance comes the loss of appropriate interventions.

Authors

Jane McAdam

Image Source: © Handout . / Reuters

Challenges and Opportunities: Aviation Emissions and the European Cap and Trade System

Joshua Meltzer — Tue, 21 May 2013 11:42:00 -0400

Editor's Note: This article was originally published in the Winter/Spring 2013 edition of the Georgetown Journal of International Affairs: The Future of Energy.

On January 1, 2012, the European Union extended its cap and trade system, the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), to include CO2 emissions from all airlines arriving in and departing from EU airspace. The EU has claimed that this unilateral action was in response to the slow progress towards reaching a global deal. However, the EU remains committed to reaching a global solution to the problem of aviation emissions and hopes that including international aviation in the ETS will spur action.

These additions to the ETS led the EU to take positions on a number of important policy issues that remain unresolved in the international climate change negotiations. These include issues such as how to attribute CO2 emissions from aviation to countries and how to operationalize the environmental principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) – the notion that developed countries will do more to reduce their CO2 emissions than developing countries. Moreover, as many of these issues are also applicable to the broader UN climate change negotiations, the success or failure of the ETS approach to international aviation could affect progress in the wider climate change negotiations.

This article outlines how the EU has designed its system to address these challenges. It also provides an overview of the challenges to reaching a global deal on regulating CO2 emissions from international aviation. The final part of the paper considers the current state of international negotiations over avia- tion emissions and suggests pathways forward.

Read the full article »

Authors

Joshua Meltzer

Publication: Georgetown Journal of International Affairs

Image Source: © Darren Staples / Reuters

Disasters, Displacement and Protection: Challenges, Shortcomings and Ways Forward

Megan Bradley and Roberta Cohen — Wed, 15 May 2013 00:00:00 -0400

Editor's note: The following is an abstract for Megan Bradley and Roberta Cohen's chapter in Disentangling Migration and Climate Change: Methodologies, Political Discourses and Human Rights, published May 15, 2013.

Natural disasters have become a primary cause of forced migration, and the effects of climate change are expected to further intensify such disasters in upcoming decades and accelerate displacement rates. Yet the conceptual, normative and organizational frameworks underpinning human rights protection for environmentally displaced persons remain under-developed. This chapter examines the need for human rights protection for environmental migrants; the challenges to providing this protection; and potential responses.

While most persons uprooted by environmental disasters will remain within their own countries, entitled to the protections set out in the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, there is a need for greater clarity regarding the status and protection needs of those displaced by ‘slow-onset’ disasters. But the largest protection gap pertains to environmentally displaced persons who cross international borders. Strengthening protection for those displaced by the effects of climate change must include clarifying and expanding normative and organizational frameworks; crafting comprehensive national protection policies; raising awareness to human rights protection; and pioneering more effective approaches for dealing with states that fail to protect their citizens.

Authors

Publication: Springer

Measuring Disasters' Full Impact

Elizabeth Ferris — Wed, 01 May 2013 16:19:00 -0400

Natural disasters can be deadly and devastating but their frequency, intensity and unpredictability teach us valuable lessons. A look back at 2012 shows that, all around the world, it was a year of “recurring disasters.” From the drought in Africa’s Sahel to Pakistan’s third consecutive year of widespread flooding to Hurricane Sandy, Senior Fellow Elizabeth Ferris, co-director of the Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement, examines the consequences and lessons of last year’s disasters.

Video

Measuring Disasters' Full Impact

Authors

Elizabeth Ferris

In Disaster Risk Management, A Gender-Sensitive Approach is Smart

Elizabeth Ferris — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 12:00:00 -0400

A gender-sensitive approach to disaster risk management is smart, because women not only are among those most affected by disasters, but they also play significant roles in disaster response and risk reduction. At our event on April 22 (Earth Day), I'll share these and other findings from my annual disasters review with Daniel Petz and Chareen Stark.

Join the conversation on Twitter using #Disasters2012.

Why do we need to consider gender in disaster risk management? Women and girls are typically at greater risk from natural disasters than men—particularly in low-income countries and among the poor—and as a result, a natural disaster can exacerbate existing inequalities and can lead to new forms of discrimination.

At the same time, women play significant roles in all stages of disaster and climate risk management, often at the frontline as responders and by bringing valuable resources to disaster and climate risk reduction and recovery. Also, their critical role in the social and economic well-being of their communities makes it crucial for them to be active participants in disaster risk reduction, response and recovery efforts.

Yet, in practice, disaster risk management policies and processes throughout the world largely exclude the important work already being done by women.

Disaster risk reduction that delivers gender equality is a cost-effective win-win option for reducing vulnerability and sustaining the livelihoods of whole communities.

—Margareta Wahlström, UN Assistant Secretary-General for Disaster Risk Reduction

The effective and meaningful participation of women in policymaking, programming and implementation is crucial to increasing success in all phases of disaster risk management. This participation, combined with timely and adequate attention to the gender aspects of disasters and climate change, can in turn lead to greater gender equality and strengthen the resilience of entire communities.

Authors

Elizabeth Ferris

Image Source: © Hyungwon Kang / Reuters

The Hazard of Wildfires

Elizabeth Ferris — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 12:00:00 -0400

Wildfires have been widespread in recent years, and are becoming a greater hazard, due to climate change and urban sprawl. Leading up to our event on April 22 (Earth Day), I'll continue to share with you some additional interesting findings from my annual disasters review with Daniel Petz and Chareen Stark.

Join the conversation on Twitter using #Disasters2012.

Wildfires—defined by the International Disaster Database (EM-DAT) as "uncontrolled burning fires, usually in wild lands, which can cause damage to forestry, agriculture, infrastructure and buildings"—have been a widespread phenomenon in recent years. The map below shows the number of observed fire occurrence readings from combined remote sensing products from 1996 to 2007¹.

¹ Data from MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Radiospectrometer) and ATSR (Along Track Scanning Radiometer). From Max A. Moritz, M.A. Parisian, E. Batillori, M.A. Krawchuk, J. Van Dorn, D.J. Ganz and K. Hayhoe, Climate change and disruptions to global fire activity, Ecosphere, June 2012, Volume 3, no. 6, Art. 49, p. 11., www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/ES11-00345.1

While these fires have not resulted in a large number of fatalities, their economic impact has been significant:

In the future, wildfires will be of even greater concern, due to the growth of urban sprawl and the effects of climate change. As more people begin to live in residential areas that border undeveloped wildland vegetation, the risk of destroyed homes and fatalities from wildfires increases. And a hotter and drier climate in many parts of the world, fuelled by global warming, provides more favorable conditions for wildfires—which, in turn, leads to loss of forest and forest degradation that drives further climate change.

Authors

Elizabeth Ferris

Image Source: © Handout . / Reuters

How Effective Are Regional Organizations in Disaster Risk Reduction and Management?

Elizabeth Ferris — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 12:00:00 -0400

Regional organizations are playing an increasingly important role in disaster risk reduction and management, but how effective are they? Leading up to our event on April 22 (Earth Day), I'll continue to share with you some additional interesting findings from my annual disasters review with Daniel Petz and Chareen Stark.

Join the conversation on Twitter using #Disasters2012.

While regional organizations are playing an increasingly important role in disasters, there has been remarkably little research on their role in disaster risk management. In an effort to address this gap, Daniel Petz and I examined thirteen regional organizations, to see how they stack up against one another according to 17 indicators of effectiveness.

Here are our results (a glossary of acronyms appears at the end of this blog post):

As you can see above, the landscape of regional organizations is complex and diverse.

In most regions, governments and other actors see value in working together to prevent disasters and—to a lesser extent—to respond to disasters occurring in their respective regions. At the same time, regional organizations have worked out different mechanisms for encouraging collaboration, including frameworks for disaster risk reduction, regional military protocols, joint training exercises and regional insurance schemes. Also, technical cooperation mechanisms—such as early warning systems—have been established, but few regional bodies provide ways of channeling financial assistance after a disaster.

*Here are the acronyms for key terms we used above:

DRM = disaster risk management
DRR = disaster risk reduction
DM = disaster management

CCA = climate change adaptation
IDRL = international disaster response laws, rules and principles

and for the regional organizations we studied:

ASEAN = Association of Southeast Asian Nations
AU = African Union
CAN = Andean Community of Nations
CARICOM = Caribbean Community
CoE = Council of Europe
ECOWAS = Economic Community of West African States
EU = European Union
LAS = League of Arab States
OAS = Organization of American States
SAARC = South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
SADC = Southern African Development Community
SICA = Central American Integration System
SPC = Secretariat of the Pacific Community

Authors

Elizabeth Ferris

Hurricanes, Typhoons and Floods: Recurring Disasters in 2012

Elizabeth Ferris — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:00:00 -0400

Hurricanes Sandy and Irene, typhoons in the Philippines, and floods in Pakistan are striking recent examples of recurring natural disasters. Leading up to our event on April 22 (Earth Day), I'll continue to share with you some additional interesting findings from my annual disasters review with Daniel Petz and Chareen Stark.

Join the conversation on Twitter using #Disasters2012.

After reviewing natural disasters in 2012, I was struck by the fact the several of the largest disasters of that year were preceded by similar events in 2011. In 2012, Hurricane Sandy followed on the heels of Irene on the U.S. East Coast; another destructive typhoon wreaked havoc in the southern Philippines, and Pakistan was hit by floods for a third consecutive year.

These recurring disasters were significant in terms of lives lost and numbers of people displaced...

... in terms of economic cost...

... and due to the sheer numbers of people who were impacted.

Recurring disasters undermine the resilience of affected individuals and communities, and call for long-term solutions that address livelihood issues and the welfare of those displaced. In addition, these disasters highlight the need for increased commitment to, and investment in, disaster risk reduction.

Implementing sound disaster (and displacement) policies can go a long way in mitigating the effects of recurring disasters, and in fostering the development of more resilient societies.

Authors

Elizabeth Ferris

Image Source: © Adrees Latif / Reuters

Black Carbon and Kerosene Lighting: An Opportunity for Rapid Action on Climate Change and Clean Energy for Development

Arne Jacobson, Nicholas L. Lam, Tami C. Bond and Nathan Hultman — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 14:09:00 -0400

SUMMARY

Replacing inefficient kerosene lighting with electric lighting or other clean alternatives can rapidly achieve development and energy access goals, save money and reduce climate warming. Many of the 250 million households that lack reliable access to electricity rely on inefficient and dangerous simple wick lamps and other kerosene-fueled light sources, using 4 to 25 billion liters of kerosene annually to meet basic lighting needs. Kerosene costs can be a significant household expense and subsidies are expensive. New information on kerosene lamp emissions reveals that their climate impacts are substantial. Eliminating current annual black carbon emissions would provide a climate benefit equivalent to 5 gigatons of carbon dioxide reductions over the next 20 years. Robust and low-cost technologies for supplanting simple wick and other kerosene-fueled lamps exist and are easily distributed and scalable. Improving household lighting offers a low-cost opportunity to improve development, cool the climate and reduce costs.

Download the full paper »

Downloads

Download the full paper

Authors

Arne Jacobson
Nicholas L. Lam
Tami C. Bond
Nathan Hultman

The Clean Energy Ministerial in Delhi: An International Forum to Address National Energy Policy Goals

Nathan Hultman — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:32:00 -0400

This week, India will host the fourth Clean Energy Ministerial (CEM), an annual gathering of energy ministers and high-level energy officials from the world’s major economies. While this conference tends to go largely unnoticed in the wider world, the CEM represents an innovative—and potentially fruitful—approach to international energy and environmental policy. Initiated in 2009 by then-incoming U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, the CEM is designed to bring together those officials charged with understanding, regulating and improving the energy systems of the world’s biggest energy users. According to the CEM, the 20 participating countries account for 90 percent of clean energy investment and 80 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

There is no formal CEM treaty structure nor is there a specific mission or agenda other than providing a forum to address issues of common concern. This makes it similar in some ways to other forums like the G-8, G-20 or ASEAN, but its sole focus on energy differentiates it. Consisting of a high-level ministerial dialogue, working groups on concrete initiatives and high-level public-private meetings, the CEM provides unique opportunities. First, it allows for informal consultations on issues of common concern, and therefore allows for the discovery, development and articulation of common goals. Second, the meeting provides a platform for government technical experts to share best practices and ideas about concrete and actionable steps that could help address energy policy goals at the national level.

The location of the CEM rotates annually, and this year India will host in Delhi. With the international community currently engaged in a vigorous discussion about post-2015 development goals, attention has turned toward improving and broadening access to clean and sustainable energy services as a means of achieving poverty reduction goals. Reaching this broad goal will take a combination of both long-term development work and specific steps that are amenable to national-level policy interventions.

In a new policy brief, Arne Jacobson, Nick Lam, Tami Bond and I have identified one such possible clear and actionable step toward such a shared goal—replacing single-wick kerosene lamps with cleaner substitutes. We argue that while the household benefits of such lamps are clear and have been well documented, new research on the much greater climate impacts of black carbon from these lamps underscores a climate benefit that would be much greater than previously estimated. In addition, at a time when there is broad consensus about the need to start phasing out fossil fuel subsidies—in a way that doesn’t hurt the poorest¬—our approach can help reduce state expenditures on kerosene subsidies while actually improving the quality of the energy services for those most in need. This is an issue of great interest in India currently, where kerosene subsidy expenditures are large and the topic of much debate.

Our suggestion is just one of several focused, low-cost and technically feasible approaches to improving the energy systems in CEM countries. Improving appliance and building efficiency standards are other examples. The CEM has the potential to stimulate real and lasting improvements in national energy policies in the world’s major economies—and with that, real and lasting improvements in development, environmental and energy-security outcomes.

Authors

Nathan Hultman

Image Source: © Adnan Abidi / Reuters

The Impacts of Natural Disasters in 2012: A Look at Fatalities and Affected Population

Elizabeth Ferris — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:00:00 -0400

In this post, I examine the impact of natural disasters in 2012 in terms of fatalities and affected population. Leading up to our event on April 22 (Earth Day), I'll be sharing with you some additional interesting findings from my annual disasters review with Daniel Petz and Chareen Stark.

Join the conversation on Twitter using #Disasters2012.

While by most accounts, 2012 was an "average" year for natural disasters, millions were still affected worldwide.

2012 did not experience any mega-disasters, and death rates in 2012 were down to about a tenth of the decade's yearly average. According to the International Disaster Database (EM-DAT), Typhoon Bopha/Pablo in the Philippines had the most fatalities—with 1,901—followed by a cold wave in Europe early this year:

In addition to fatalities, according to the EM-DAT data, some 106 million people were affected by disasters in 2012—many of whom were internally displaced—down considerably from the 209 million that were affected in 2011:

These numbers notwithstanding, 2012 is notable in that several of the biggest disasters last year were preceded by similar events in 2011. Examples include Hurricane Sandy in the wake of Hurricane Irene in the U.S., Typhoon Bopha on the heels Tropical Storm Washi in the Philippines, and floods for the third straight year in Pakistan.

As we will see in tomorrow's blog post, these "recurring disasters" can have a devastating impact on a community's resilience and raise important questions for policymakers.

Authors

Elizabeth Ferris

Image Source: © Erik de Castro / Reuters

Climate Policy Across the Globe: Lessons Learned and Key Challenges

Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:00:00 -0400

Event Information

April 15, 2013
4:00 PM - 5:30 PM EDT

Falk Auditorium
Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20036

While global climate negotiations are stalled, a surprising development is underway. In the last decade, regional, national and subnational actions to combat climate change have proliferated. Governments are making it possible to build new, clean sources of energy, regulating industries for greater energy efficiency and encouraging better land-use practices. Their accumulated experience can provide lessons on how to combat climate change faster and more cheaply. Climate Policy Initiative, a global policy effectiveness analysis and advisory organization led by Thomas C. Heller, explores this experience in five key emissions regions—the U.S., China, India, Brazil and Europe—in the inaugural edition of “The Policy Climate” report. Focusing on the most emissions-intensive industry sectors in these regions, the report presents three decades of evidence on emissions trends, economic and industry drivers of emissions, and policy activity.

On April 15, Global Economy and Development at Brookings and Climate Policy Initiative hosted a discussion on “The Policy Climate” and how findings from the report can influence future global climate policy. Climate Policy Initiative Senior Director David Nelson gave a short presentation, followed by a panel discussion. Panelists included Thomas C. Heller, CPI executive director; Heather Zichal, deputy assistant to the president for Energy and Climate Change in the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy; and Jennifer Morgan, director the Climate and Energy Program at World Resources Institute. Brookings Senior Fellow Katherine Sierra moderated the discussion.

Recurring Disasters: Are We Learning Lessons?

Elizabeth Ferris — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:00:00 -0400

For the past three years, we’ve compiled an annual review of natural disasters, highlighting not only overall trends for the year but drawing out lessons to prepare for future disasters. Given the fact that the frequency, intensity and unpredictability of natural disasters is expected to increase as a result of climate change, it is more important than ever that we learn from the past.

In looking back at 2012, we were struck by the ‘recurring disasters’ which occurred in different parts of the world. Hurricane Irene hit the northeastern United States in 2011 and then a little over a year later, Hurricane Sandy hit the same area. Typhoon Washi/Sendong in the Philippines was followed a year later by the deadly Typhoon Bopha/Pablo. And Pakistan experienced its third straight year of widespread flooding. When recurring disasters strike the same communities – communities which haven’t yet recovered from the previous disaster – the results can be devastating. The resilience of affected individuals and communities is undermined. Particularly when the communities are poor and marginalized (who tend to be more affected by disasters in any case), it can be hard to muster the energy and the resources to start over again. The devastation caused by recurring disasters in 2012 highlights the need for increased commitment and investment in disaster risk reduction. But we also know that it’s always easier to mobilize support for responding to a disaster than for taking measures to reduce the risk of future ones.

Statistically, 2012 was an ‘average’ year for disasters without the mega-disasters we saw in 2010 (Haiti) or 2011 (Japan). The deadliest disaster of 2012 was Typhoon Bopha/Pablo in the Philippines; the most expensive disaster was Hurricane Sandy in the US and Caribbean; and the disaster which affected the most people was the drought/food crisis in the Sahel region.

In this year’s review, we also looked at the role of regional organizations in disaster risk management – which is part of a larger research project we’re undertaking. Regional organizations seem to be playing an increasingly important role in the complex world of disaster risk management but have received very little attention. Regional organizations, we found, come in many sizes and shapes and they are involved in different kinds of work with disasters. For example, we found that all regions have developed framework agreements on disaster risk reduction or response. In most regions technical cooperation mechanisms – such as early warning systems – have been established. But few regional bodies provide the means for channeling financial assistance after a disaster.

We also looked at one particular type of disaster – wildfires. As evident in Australia, Russia and the United States, wildfires can destroy large swathes of forest. And yet, wildfires are not very significant in the overall scheme of disasters (with only 156 wildfire disasters reported over the past decade resulting in only 0.07 percent of global disaster fatalities.) But the combination of urban sprawl and a hotter and drier climate because of climate change in many parts of the world make it likely that we’ll see more wildfires in the future.

Finally, we looked at the gender dimensions of natural disasters. Natural disasters and climate change often exacerbate existing inequalities and discriminations, including those that are gender-based and can lead to new forms of discrimination. But women are not just victims; they play significant roles in disaster risk management. They are often at the frontline when disasters occur and they bring valuable resources to risk reduction and recovery efforts. When they are able to participate in the decisions that affect their lives, their families, and their communities, women have much to offer.

Authors

Elizabeth Ferris

Beyond the Climate Impasse: How the Major Economies Forum Can Lead the Way

Timmons Roberts — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 12:50:00 -0400

During George W. Bush’s administration, the government was under pressure to act on climate change, but saw the U.N. as a dead end for negotiations. Instead of the cumbersome talks with almost 200 countries at the table, the Bush administration favored “minilateral” or “plurilateral” solutions with small groups of countries.

Now in 2013, with a new president in the White House who was feted by the Nobel committee for renewing multilateralism, the idea of smaller plurilateral solutions seems to have kept its currency. After two arduous decades of negotiations since the 1992 Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit when the first climate framework treaty was penned, it’s time to reconsider whether these smaller groups can break the endless stalemate.

Although the negotiations have grown tremendously complex, the core difficulty is who has to act to reduce their emissions, how much and when. An “apple pie” phrase in the 1992 treaty is that countries should act according to their “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.” It’s a pretty agreeable statement: everyone’s responsible for this global crisis, but some countries created much more of the problem so they should act, and especially those countries with the most funds. Developing countries see this as obligating the wealthy nations who have dumped the most carbon pollution into the atmosphere to act first and most aggressively to cut their emissions. Some key wealthy countries have resisted acknowledging “historical responsibility,” since doing so might mean damage to their economic competitiveness, or maybe even imply legal liability.

But the clock has been ticking these 20 years, and time is running out. We need a viable coalition for efficiently and adequately addressing emissions reductions, consisting of a group small enough to avoid the unworkability of full universal multilateralism and, at the same time, large enough to significantly address the issue. This could be the week for such a step, as the Obama administration hosts representatives from a group of countries assembled precisely for breaking this impasse.

George W. Bush began a group called the “Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change” back in 2007, and upon arriving in the White House, President Obama renamed the group the “Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate.” The new “MEF” was officially launched in March 2009 “to facilitate a candid dialogue among major developed and developing economies [and] help generate the political leadership necessary to achieve a successful outcome at the annual U.N. climate negotiations.”

The group has met 14 times since then, and will next meet this week from April 11-12, 2013 in Washington. Its members include Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the EU-27, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa and the U.S. If you add them all up, over four-fifths of all contributions to fossil fuel greenhouse gas emissions in the world are represented. A reasonable deal within this group would be nearly five times more effective than the current commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, which only covers 15 percent of global emissions.

In a recently published Brookings’ paper, Marco Grasso of the University of Milan-Bicocca and I propose a compromise by which the MEF could break the climate negotiations impasse. Markedly, our approach requires all key players to compromise on some demands in order for their own to be met. The goals are fairness and feasibility.

First, we suggest the use of ‘consumption-based accounting,’ which counts emissions where products are consumed, not produced. This would be fairer and beneficial for China, the leading current emitter and third highest emitter historically. China is the ‘workshop of the world’ and essentially the place to which other countries have outsourced their highly polluting stages of manufacturing. Because of its diverse economy, which includes significant resource extraction and primary processing of those resources, this kind of accounting also doesn’t hurt the U.S. significantly.

Second, we create a ‘carbon budget,’ based on the total amount of emissions that can still be released while keeping us below a 25 percent chance of the world warming above 2 ˚C on average. That’s the level at which the climate change is expected to worsen to the point of unpredictable and unacceptable impacts. Also central to the compromise, to apportion the carbon budget we propose a ‘short horizon polluter pays principle,’ which calculates responsibility for climate change from past fossil fuel emissions, but only from 1990 to 2010. India, China and other developing nations have demanded that the wealthy countries be obligated to act based on their long histories of emitting and their capability to pay, and our short horizon polluter pays principle and use of national income as an indictor of capability address their concern. However, limiting the responsibility for past fossil fuel emissions to a 20 year horizon is a compromise for the U.S., EU and other wealthy countries with far longer emissions histories. While developed nations must acknowledge some responsibility, this proposed compromise only requires that they do so from the point that climate change emerged as a concern and global negotiations on the issue were underway.

This minilateral compromise within the Major Economies Forum may be the only way to avoid the disasters that lie ahead. In this deal, all actors must bend to some demands of the other key players in order for their own to be met, as with any true compromise. The MEF can lead us down a new road by exploring this approach.

Authors

Timmons Roberts

A Fair Compromise to Break the Climate Impasse

Timmons Roberts and Marco Grasso — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 13:36:00 -0400

Key messages and Policy Pointers

• Given the stalemate in U.N. climate negotiations, the best arena to strike a workable deal is among the members the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate (MEF).

• The 13 MEF members—including the EU-27 (but not double-counting the four EU countries that are also individual members of the MEF)—account for 81.3 percent of all global emissions.

• This proposal devises a fair compromise to break the impasse to develop a science-based approach for fairly sharing the carbon budget in order to have a 75 percent chance of avoiding dangerous climate change.

• To increase the likelihood of a future climate agreement, carbon accounting must shift from production-based inventories to consumption-based ones.

• The shares of a carbon budget to stay below 2 °C through 2050 are calculated by cumulative emissions since 1990, i.e. according to a short-horizon polluter pays principle, and national capability (income), and allocated to MEF members through emission rights. This proposed fair compromise addresses key concerns of major emitters.

• According to this accounting, no countries have negative carbon budgets, there is substantial time for greening major developing economies, and some developed countries need to institute very rapid reductions in emissions.

• To provide a ‘green ladder’ to developing countries and to ensure a fair global deal, it will be crucial to agree how to extend sufficient and predictable financial support and the rapid transfer of technology.

The most urgent and complicated ethical issue in addressing climate change is how human society will share the work of reducing greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions. Looking ahead to 2015 when a new international treaty on climate change should be agreed upon, we fear we are headed towards a train wreck.

Key developed countries have made it clear they will not accept any regime excluding emerging economies such as China and Brazil, and the U.S. and other ‘umbrella’ countries are calling for only voluntary, bottom-up commitments. Yet the major developing countries have made equity the sine qua non for any kind of agreement: they will not take on mandatory emission reduction targets with perceived implications for their economic growth and social development, unless the wealthier countries commit to deep emissions cuts and act first.

These entrenched positions between the different blocs have led to the current impasse, but as Nobel laureate economist and philosopher, Amaryta Sen pointed out, the perfect agreement that never happens is more unjust than an imperfect one that is obtainable.

What is a fair and feasible way to break the impasse, given that all efforts are faltering? The most difficult task is determining a country’s fair share of the required emissions reductions in a way that is politically feasible. After 20 years of negotiations and gridlock, it is clear that many conflicting principles of equity are brought to the table, so a solution will have to be based on some kind of ‘negotiated justice,’ or a ‘fair compromise,’ which will not be one preferred by just one group of countries.

A few basic requirements must be met. A feasible, fair and effective climate agreement must involve the largest emitters from both the developed and developing countries. Such an agreement must find a way to engage the latter without penalizing them or the former countries too much. In order to secure progress, above all it must be acceptable to the two world superpowers and top carbon emitters, China and the U.S.; with this leadership, in fact, other emitters will likely follow. This agreement could be forged in a ‘plurilateral’ setting where a limited number of countries come together first, and then be brought into the formal U.N. negotiations as the basis for a future deal, perhaps by 2015.

How can future negotiations on emissions reductions overcome such political inertia? We suggest that taking three manageable steps to a fair compromise will unlock progress.

First, negotiate a core agreement between the 13 members in the MEF (including the EU-27), which accounts for 81.3 percent of all global emissions. This makes the negotiations feasible, where deals can be struck that would be impossible in the vast U.N. forum.

Second, use consumption-based emissions accounting, which is much fairer than the current production/territorial-based accounting that all past agreements and negotiations have been based upon. These are relatively new numbers developed by the Norwegian research center CICERO, and have been vetted by the top scientific journals and increasingly utilized by policymakers.

Third, forge a fair compromise to allocate emissions rights. We propose a compromise based on a short-horizon ‘polluter pays principle’ and an indicator of national capability (income).

This third step in particular is a genuine compromise for both developed and developing countries, but it is required to break the current gridlock. Each MEF member gives and takes something from this simple, workable framework and all gain a liveable planet in the future.

Throughout the paper we first explain why counting carbon emissions by consumption is far better and the implications of doing so, and we then introduce the MEF and why it is a promising arena for forging a bold compromise like the one so badly needed before 2015. We then calculate what the numbers actually mean for that group of countries and develop a proposal for a fair compromise that embodies a feasible but fair operationalization of the central equity principles of the U.N. climate treaty, i.e. action by countries according to their responsibility and capability. We conclude with a discussion of how a start in the MEF could lead to a new framework being brought into those broader negotiations.

Brookings: Topics - Climate Change

International Actions to Support Green Growth Innovation Goals

Downloads

Authors

Pacific Islanders Lead Nansen Initiative Consultation on Cross-Border Displacement from Natural Disasters and Climate Change

Authors

Challenges and Opportunities: Aviation Emissions and the European Cap and Trade System

Authors

Disasters, Displacement and Protection: Challenges, Shortcomings and Ways Forward

Authors

Measuring Disasters' Full Impact

Video

Authors

In Disaster Risk Management, A Gender-Sensitive Approach is Smart

Authors

The Hazard of Wildfires

Authors

How Effective Are Regional Organizations in Disaster Risk Reduction and Management?

Authors

Hurricanes, Typhoons and Floods: Recurring Disasters in 2012

Authors

Black Carbon and Kerosene Lighting: An Opportunity for Rapid Action on Climate Change and Clean Energy for Development

Downloads

Authors

The Clean Energy Ministerial in Delhi: An International Forum to Address National Energy Policy Goals

Authors

The Impacts of Natural Disasters in 2012: A Look at Fatalities and Affected Population

Authors

Climate Policy Across the Globe: Lessons Learned and Key Challenges

Event Information

Audio

Transcript

Event Materials

Recurring Disasters: Are We Learning Lessons?

Authors

Beyond the Climate Impasse: How the Major Economies Forum Can Lead the Way

Authors

A Fair Compromise to Break the Climate Impasse

Downloads

Authors