Heleen de Coninck

Sharing global CO2 emission reductions among one billion high emitters

We present a framework for allocating a global carbon reduction target among nations, in which the concept of “common but differentiated responsibilities” refers to the emissions of individuals instead of nations. We use the income distribution of a country to estimate how its fossil fuel CO2 emissions are distributed among its citizens, from which we build up a global CO2 distribution. We then propose a simple rule to derive a universal cap on global individual emissions and find corresponding limits on national aggregate emissions from this cap. All of the worlds high CO2-emitting individuals are treated the same, regardless of where they live. Any future global emission goal (target and time frame) can be converted into national reduction targets, which are determined by “Business as Usual” projections of national carbon emissions and in-country income distributions. For example, reducing projected global emissions in 2030 by 13 GtCO2 would require the engagement of 1.13 billion high emitters, roughly equally distributed in 4 regions: the U.S., the OECD minus the U.S., China, and the non-OECD minus China. We also modify our methodology to place a floor on emissions of the worlds lowest CO2 emitters and demonstrate that climate mitigation and alleviation of extreme poverty are largely decoupled.

Technology transfer in the clean development mechanism

Technology transfer is often mentioned as an ancillary benefit of the Kyoto Protocols Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), but this claim has hardly been researched or substantiated. The question of technology transfer is important, both for developing countries in need for new technology and knowledge and for industrialized countries, as it provides export potential for climate-friendly technologies. To determine what technology transfer means, whether it is occurring through the CDM, and what the value of the associated capital flows is, this article examines technology transfer in the 63 CDM projects that were registered up until 1 January 2006. Technology hardware originates from outside the host country in almost 50% of the evaluated projects, particularly in non-CO2 greenhouse gas projects, wind energy projects, and a substantial share of the hydropower projects. Bioenergy and projects in the agricultural sector mainly use local technology. The investment value associated with the CDM projects that transferred technology is estimated to be around €470 million, with about €390 million coming from the EU. As the non-CO2 greenhouse gas projects had very low capital costs, the investment value was highest in the more capital-intensive wind energy and hydropower projects. We also found substantial soft technology transfer, but uncertainties for this finding are greater.

Carbon dioxide capture and storage: Seven years after the IPCC special report

Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) entails separating carbon dioxide from coal-, biomassor gas-fired power plants or other large industrial sources, transporting the carbon dioxide by pipeline, injecting it deep underground, and storing it indefinitely in geological reservoirs including depleted oil and gas fields, and saline aquifers. CCS is envisioned to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to the atmosphere when applied to large facilities that use fossil fuels. Applied to biomass, it may also lower CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere while supplying energy. The publication of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2005) Special Report on CCS (SRCCS) raised the profile of CCS, particularly among the expert community dealing with international climate policy (Meadowcroft and Langhelle 2009). The expert community now commonly sees CCS as a major option for reducing global emissions of CO2. The technology plays a major role in long-term scenarios where there is significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (Clarke et al. 2009; IEA 2010a). For CCS to play such a major role, the separation, transport and storage would have to handle large volumes of CO2, and involve huge investments in facilities and infrastructure. The SRCCS conveyed some key insights. First, it clearly indicated that in principle, CCS is technically feasible. It also found that subsurface endowments of geological storage are probably massive, but regionally distributed and still highly uncertain. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:563–567 DOI 10.1007/s11027-012-9391-5

Making sense of policy for climate technology development and transfer

encompass[ing] the broad set of processes that cover the flows of knowledge, experience, and equipment for mitigating and adapting to climate change among different stakeholders. These include governments, international organizations, private sector entities, financial institutions, NGOs and research and/or education institutions. It comprises the process of learning to understand, utilize, and replicate the technology, including the capacity to choose it, adapt it to local conditions, and integrate it with indigenous technologies. (IPCC, 2000)

Evaluating technology transfer in the Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation

To what extent do the Kyoto Protocols flexible mechanisms facilitate technology transfer to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? This analysis reviews the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) project portfolios, sample sets of projects, and the technology transfer (TT) literature to address this question. Criteria were developed to assess whether TT occurred relating to the origin of technologies, whether they differ from business-asusual (BAU), and whether knowledge to implement the technology was imported. For CDM projects, lower- and non-emitting energy technologies account for a large share of total projects in the portfolio, but a relatively low share of total emission reductions. For JI projects, lower- and non-emitting energy technologies play a somewhat stronger role than in CDM. Based on sample projects, approximately 50% of the CDM projects and 62% of the JI projects involved transfer of technology hardware from outside of the host country. The European Union accounted for 83% (JI) and 92% (CDM) of the value of technology exported for these projects. While the flexible mechanisms are facilitating TT, they are insufficient in themselves to allow key lower- and non-emitting technologies to overcome cost and risk barriers and become attractive for widespread deployment. The analysis suggests approaches to leverage the ability of the mechanisms to stimulate TT in key technologies.

Collaborative research and development (R&D) for climate technology transfer and uptake in developing countries: towards a needs driven approach

While international cooperation to facilitate the transfer and uptake of climate technologies in developing countries is an ongoing part of climate policy conversations, international collaborative R&D has received comparatively little attention. Collaborative R&D, however, could be a potentially important contributor to facilitating the transfer and uptake of climate technologies in developing countries. But the complexities of international collaborative R&D options and their distributional consequences have been given little attention to date. This paper develops a systematic approach to informing future empirical research and policy analysis on this topic. Building on insights from relevant literature and analysis of empirical data based on a sample of existing international climate technology R&D initiatives, three contributions are made. First, the paper analyses the coverage of existing collaborative R&D efforts in relation to climate technologies, highlighting some important concerns, such as a lack of coverage of lower-income countries or adaptation technologies. Second, it provides a starting point for further systematic research and policy thinking via the development of a taxonomic approach for analysing collaborative designs. Finally, it matches characteristics of R&D collaborations against developing countries’ climate technology needs to provide policymakers with guidance on how to Configure R&D collaborations to meet these needs.

Assessing climate change mitigation technology interventions by international institutions

Accelerating the international use of climate mitigation technologies is key if efforts to curb climate change are to succeed, especially in developing countries, where weak domestic technological innovation systems constrain the uptake of climate change mitigation technologies. Several intergovernmental agencies have set up specific programmes to support the diffusion of climate mitigation technologies. Using a simplified technological innovation system-based framework, this paper aims to systematically review these programmes, with the dual aim of assessing their collective success in promoting technological innovation, and identifying opportunities for the newly formed UNFCCC Technology Mechanism. We conclude that, while all programmes reviewed have promoted technology transfer, they have given limited attention to innovation capabilities with users, government and universities. Functions that could be further developed include knowledge development, legitimation and market formation. These could be focal areas for the UNFCCC Technology Mechanism. We recommend that, in future programmes, part of the funding is dedicated to programmes doing research and development as well as capability development.

Transport, Development and Climate Change Mitigation: Towards an Integrated Approach

Abstract Transport and infrastructure development enables economic and social development, but is often detrimental to sustainable development due to congestion, accidents, air pollution, as well as greenhouse gas emissions. Various policy frameworks have been created to connect transport with development, development with climate change and climate change mitigation with the transport sector. However, so far no consistent framework exists that addresses these three areas in an integrated manner.This article demonstrates that sustainable development of the transport sector is not viable on the longer term in the absence of such a three-way framework. First, current perspectives and practices on transport and (sustainable) development are reviewed, demonstrating that outcomes and policies are not consistently positive on all three dimensions. The article then re-evaluates the Avoid–Shift–Improve (ASI) approach, initially developed to address climate change mitigation and other environmental issues in the transport sector, adding two perspectives on sustainable development that are not generally taken into account when discussing ASI: transition theory and sustainable lifestyles. Together with attention to the development function of transport by incorporating Access into ASI, this could enable a more long-term sustainability-oriented view on transport, development and climate mitigation.

Characteristics of Carbon Transactions. Joint Implementation, Clean Development Mechanisms and Emission Trading in Perspective

Throughout the past years, the first carbon credits – though not yet certified by the UNFCCC – have been traded. The technologies used, project size and regional preferences of carbon transactions via Joint Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism approved under major programmes are reviewed in this paper. The current full JI and CDM project portfolio aims to reduce some 100 MtCO2-eq. This market is highly monopsonic; the buyers determine which credits are sold. The 12 JI projects are mainly implemented in Romania and Poland and constitute a diverse technology portfolio. Most of the 37 CDM projects are implemented in Latin America. Hydro and wind energy projects dominate in terms of numbers of projects. One large-scale fuel switch and one afforestation project bias the portfolio in terms of absolute CO2 reduction. Comments are made on the baseline consistency and additionality of the currently selected projects. The assessment of emissions trading programmes is more difficult than that of separate projects, because of the characteristics of an emissions trading market. Yet, depending on the starting conditions, the ET programmes vary in their success.Throughout the past years, the first carbon credits – though not yet certified by the UNFCCC – have been traded. The technologies used, project size and regional preferences of carbon transactions via Joint Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism approved under major programmes are reviewed in this paper. The current full JI and CDM project portfolio aims to reduce some 100 MtCO 2 -eq. This market is highly monopsonic; the buyers determine which credits are sold. The 12 JI projects are mainly implemented in Romania and Poland and constitute a diverse technology portfolio. Most of the 37 CDM projects are implemented in Latin America. Hydro and wind energy projects dominate in terms of numbers of projects. One large-scale fuel switch and one afforestation project bias the portfolio in terms of absolute CO 2 reduction. Comments are made on the baseline consistency and additionality of the currently selected projects. The assessment of emissions trading programmes is more difficult than that of separate projects, because of the characteristics of an emissions trading market. Yet, depending on the starting conditions, the ET programmes vary in their success.

Successful CCS relies upon social science

At the start of this interesting book, the editors ask the question ‘why should you read a book about the social science of CCS?’. The answer is very clear to anyone who is even vaguely familiar with carbon capture and storage (CCS) and its history since it took the climate change mitigation community by storm in 2005 and the years thereafter. The technology is currently mired in an existential crisis that cannot be explained purely by technoeconomic arguments. Criticism has surged, and many have lost faith in the viability of this option – not only on the grounds of public acceptance, but also for economic, environmental, and political reasons. However, as many still feel that CCS is an essential part of climate change mitigation, a book on the social dynamics of CCS is insightful not only for the many engineers, geologists, and economists who have worked on this controversial technology, but also for anyone with an interest in climate policy. To paraphrase just a few excellent and intriguing questions the book asks, if CCS is deemed essential by resource-strong companies and governments, then why are investments so difficult to make and why are demonstration projects much more likely to be cancelled than to go forward? If CCS is essential for environmental conservation, then why is it often rejected by environmentally invested actors, and by the general public, for environmental reasons? Or, more generally, what can social science say about why progress is stalling? The book is built on three pillars: (1) perceptions and representations, (2) governance, and (3) innovation. The first theme of the public perception of CCS is relatively well researched. CCS demonstration projects were rejected by local communities, even though they were considered harmless and arguably safe by experts, at great financial and reputational cost to government and companies, and not least to CCS itself. It became clear that how CCS is perceived by civil society is of enormous relevance. Positive and negative experiences with public information, engagement, and perception around CCS projects have yielded much material for social science research. From a comparative study of public engagement of CCS demonstrations, Judith Bradbury draws conclusions that are consistent with the existing literature: resistance to a project is less likely when the affected community perceives benefits, when a positive and trusting relation between the CCS project developer and the local community exists, and when engagement is done early and in an open and coordinated way that is not perceived as a oneoff effort with the only purpose being to get people on board. The public perception part of the book is the most developed and clear in its policy messages and, as a consequence, is also the least innovative. Indeed,