Summary: Many people believe being green costs more money. Here are 5 ideas that will help you go green without breaking the bank either.
__________________________________________
By Jessica Kane
Many people want to go green but they don’t know where to start, or it seems to be an overwhelming task. It is possible to preserve and protect your environment while saving money at the same time. Although many eco-friendly enhancements such as buying energy-efficient appliances can initially cost you money, there are many ways to adopt a green lifestyle that can save you lots of money. While some of these methods may require you to make a small upfront investment, the benefits will be immense. The following ideas will help you on your way to going green.
1. Plant trees
According to th e US Depa rtment of Energy, strategic tree planting can reduce the air conditioning costs of an unshaded home by up to 50 percent. Utility companies usually provide their clients with free trees all-year-round to help reduce their energy costs through strategic planting. So, check with your utility service provider to see if they offer such programs. Also, some local governments provide trees as part of Arbor Day celebrations that take place every last Friday of Aprildifferent states may celebrate it on different days. Check your local government website to see if they are giving away trees during the Arbor Day celebrations. You can also become a member of the Arbor Day Foundation for $10 and receive ten free trees. This membership also entitles you to a 33 percent discount when you buy trees online from the foundation.
2. Bike to work
According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), if you leave your car at home for two days a week, you reduce your greenhouse gas emissions by over 3,000 pounds annually. Also, you will save money on parking and gas if you bike to work instead of driving. For instance, you can save about $7 daily by biking instead of driving if you have a 16-mile round trip to work. If you find this difficult, you can also drive less by setting up a carpool, walking, or using public transportation.
3. Use a programmable thermostat
According to the Energy Department, you can save up to 10 percent annually on cooling and heating costs. During winter, you can save costs by setting the thermostat to 69 degrees while you are awake, and you can program it to a lower temperature when you’re away from home, or asleep. During summer, set the thermostat to 79 degrees and increase the temperature when you’re away from home.
For each degree you lower or increase the temperature during summer or winter, you shed about one percent off your utility bills. And when you get home, you won’t need to use more energy to cool or warm your house as many people misconceive.
4. Use water-efficient fixtures
By installing water-efficient toilets, showerheads, and faucets, you can save lots of money on your water bills. When shopping for these fixtures, look for those labeled WaterSense. These are certified to be at least 20% more efficient, and they don’t sacrifice their performance either. For example, a WaterSense toilet will save a family of five over $90 on the water bill each year, and over $2,000 during the lifetime of the toilet.
5. Purchase a power strip
“Energy vampires” is a nickname for appliances that use power even when they are not in use. According to EPA, these appliances cost Americans about $10 billion annually, and they account for about 11 percent of all US energy use. If you want to avoid unplugging all electronics when they are not being used, buy an affordable power strip where you can plug in all your electronics and turn them off with the flip of a switch. A Smart Strip Power Strip costs about $25 and will automatically shut down computer peripherals such as scanners, monitors, and printers when they are not in use.
Going green is not as difficult as many people think. By making certain lifestyle adjustments, you can preserve your environment while saving money at the same time.
Jessica Kane is a professional blogger who writes for Econoheat ., the world’s #1 leading manufacturer of the largest waste oil burning product line.
Summary: Green-roof zoning laws may provide a solution to the Urban Heat Island Effect, which contributes to anthropogenic climate change through heat pollution originating from large cities. US legislators may follow the lead of Stuttgart, Germany, where exemplary city-greening zoning laws have greatly reduced urban pollution.
__________________________________________
By Gabriela Steier, Esq.
Green-roofs are an overlooked solution to the complex problem of heat pollution, which contributes to anthropogenic climate change. As Catherine Malina wrote in a Georgetown International Environmental Law Review article in 2011, however, green-roof zoning laws could be effective and cost-efficient options to mitigate heat pollution from urban microclimates known as
The UHIE is a problem in major cities around the world, but the US could learn from Germany’s examples to mitigate the resulting heat pollution. Stuttgart , Germany, for example, is the hub of major car producers Audi and Mercedes-Benz, and is known as “the cradle of the automobile.” It would resemble Detroit in the US, but for the major distinguishing factor that Stuttgart has prevented a mass exodus and post-industrialization impoverishment. Stuttgart is leading the city-greening way.
One method of city greening is roof greening, planting vegetation atop buildings to offset some of the UHIE . Thus, the important and novel approach here suggests green-roof zoning laws to reduce the UHIE.
Targeting Climate Change with Green-Roofs
The UHIE affects public health and contributes to climate change. According to the US Environmental Protection gency (EPA) , the UHIE occurs in metropolitan areas and “can affect communities by increasing summertime peak energy demand, air conditioning costs, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, heat-related illness, . . . mortality, and water quality.” In fact , “[o]n sunny summer days, city roofs and pavement, which are dry and exposed, may be 50-90°F hotter than natural surfaces, which are shaded or moist.” Correspondingly , the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) “estimates that the warming and precipitation trends due to anthropogenic climate change of the past 30 years already claim over 150,000 lives annually,” especially where the UHIE is the greatest. In fact, EPA estimates that “a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8-5.4°F (1-3°C) warmer than its surroundings” during the day and 22°F (12°C) in the evening. Predictions based on the 1995 Chicago and 2003 Europe heatwaves anticipate 25-31 percent higher frequencies and 72-76 percent longer heatwaves by 2090. Studies in the largest metropolitan areas in the US also confirm the links between mortality, the UHIE, and climate change.
According to meteorological simulations , green-roofs can cut the urban global warming contributions in half and could reduce urban carbon emissions dramatically. A recent report published by the National Academy of Science explains that, continued conversion of existing lands to urban landscapes has the potential to drive significant local and regional climate change, compounding global warming. At the same time, how cities choose to expand and develop will be critical to defining how successful society will be in adapting to global change. Because cities are, in a real sense, fundamental units of both climate change adaptation and mitigation, development choices in the coming century will lead to either significant exacerbation or significant reduction in the impacts of global change.
Additionally, as noted in Malina’s article, Michigan State University researchers “found that a square meter of vegetation captures 375 grams of carbon, which suggests greening Detroit’s rooftops could remove as much carbon from the atmos the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHIE), urban heat absorption and radiation on impervious surfaces, such as concrete, asphalt and brick.phere as taking 10,000 mid-sized SUVs and trucks off the road for a year.”
Correspondingly, in the US, land use laws aim at environmental protection after urban development but no specific regulation addresses the UHIE. The EPA maintains a Heat Island Reduction Program, which merely provides non-binding guidance for local action. Through green-roofs , the overall energy consumption of the building is lowered, and green-roofs “provide a beneficial environmental modification that reduced building energy needs and protects against two current public health stressors: high summertime heat and ground-level ozone . . . . ” Strikingly, although the business and environmental cases for green-roofs have been established and despite the surge in green construction, no streamlined approaches of government intervention have emerged to support and incentivize green-roofs.
Green-Roofing Benefits to Offset the UHIE
In Stuttgart, the Federal Nature Conservation Act (BNatSchG), the Nature Conservation Act of the state of Baden-Württemberg (NatSchG), and the federal German building code (BauGB) govern the preservation of green spaces, including green-roofs. The overarching general principle of the federal BNatSCHG is “to permanently safeguard (1) biological diversity, (2) the performance and functioning of the natural balance, including the ability of natural resources to regenerate and lend themselves to sustainable use, and (3) the diversity, characteristic features and beauty of nature and landscape. . . . ” These German laws create a culture of city greening that extended to Stuttgart’s roofs and even industrial buildings. Accordingly, Stuttgart’s Urban Climatology Office implemented these provisions by mapping the UHIE and establishing specific city-greening zoning based on the climate atlas maps.Figure 1 Stuttgart’s Climate Atlas Map . This classified thermal map illustrates the highest UHIE in Stuttgart. Red and orange zones have the greatest variance from normal temperatures and overlap with the most densely populated areas with the least vegetation where the UHIE is most significant. Green and blue areas show the coolest regions which coincide with green areas and woods.
In the US, green-roof policy insufficiently targets the UHIE. Such policy includes pilot projects, financial incentives, and command-and-control strategies, which lack behind Stuttgart’s model in practicality, likelihood of success, and legislative impact to create a culture of city greening resembling the one in Stuttgart. First, pilot projects are only examples and curtail setting national roof-greening trends without effective green-roof legislation. Second, general financial incentives ineffectively reduce market barriers – or else there would be more green-roofs in the US.
Portland, Oregon, for example, actually used zoning in its direct financial incentive program, and are somewhat successful, but these plans generally do not create a lasting commitment and ignore the underlying reason of mitigating climate change. Third, current building regulation is opaque, inconsistent, and unpopular with developers. In sum, legal tools in the US exist to promote green-roofs but local legislation could complement them to overcome current shortcomings.
Rethinking Zoning
US zoning laws may follow Stuttgart’s implementation of the BNatSchG, NatSchG and BauGB through green-roof zoning legislation. By analogy, local legislative action, informed by the EPA’s heat island effect program, may target microclimates to mitigate climate change by tailoring US zoning laws to regional city-greening requirements. Ideal green-roof zoning laws would combine features already nested in municipal urban agriculture, impervious overlay zoning, or tax codes. Boston Zoning Code § 89(5) , for example, allows both open-air and greenhouse rooftop farming. Additionally, green-roofs slow stormwater runoff in mapped districts that zone for total impervious cover limits. Urban farms on roof tops, for example oasify barren roof surfaces, thereby effectively using otherwise lost space. Applied to megapolitan heat islands, reversing the heat desertification by planting roof top gardens, it may also help to expand urban farming.
Overall, green-roof zoning laws put climate change mitigation control in the hands of communities and provide benefits that extend far beyond their target cities. Comprehensive city-wide green-roof acts from Toronto or New York’s tax abatement should proliferate green-roofs to offset the respective city’s heat pollution. Minneapolis , for instance, incentivizes green-roofing indirectly by offering utility fee reductions for managing stormwater quality or quantity. Correspondingly, Philadelphia offers green-roof tax incentives of one quarter of the construction cost, thereby removing market barriers. Lessons from these cities could be easily translated across metroplitan areas in the US. In following Stuttgart’s example, green-roof zoning can mitigate climate change while improving urban resilience to environmental impacts. Green-roof zoning offsets urban heat pollution by literally putting “green on top.”
Gabriela Steier, Esq., joined the Vermont Law School as an LLM Fellow in Food and Agriculture Law in August, 2015. Originally from Germany, she and earned a B.A. from Tufts University, a J.D. from Duquesne University, and pursues a doctorate in comparative law from the University of Cologne, Germany. Prior to joining the Vermont Law School, she worked as a Legal Fellow at the Center For Food Safety in Washington, D.C., where she focused on food safety, public health, pollinator protection, animal welfare, international trade, and GMO issues domestically and in the European Union. She has published widely on international food law and policy and has earned several awards for her work. In her free time, she enjoys sharing healthy and delicious foods with friends and family, painting, traveling, and nature walks. This paper is devoted to my father, mentor and best friend, Prof. Dr. Liviu Steier with heartfelt gratitude for brainstorming with me and for all of his support. Warm thanks go to Dr. Regina Steier and Fany Sontag with love and to Morrice for his patience. Special thanks to my classmates and to Professor Craig Pease for their helpful suggestions and insightful critiques of earlier drafts in the Vermont Law School’s LLM Seminar Fall 2015.
The following article is part of an Eco-Perspective special in which the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law is collaborating with the VLS COP21 Observer Delegation
__________________________________________
By Sara Barnowski
Delegates and negotiators have worked around the clock for days (weeks, months, and years for some) to put together an agreement with prospects of being adopted. If everything goes according to plan, today, their efforts will come to fruition. COP21 President , Laurent Fabius, made an impassioned appeal this morning in support of the final text, urging delegates to set aside any remaining doubts and to approve this agreement for the good of mankind.
This afternoon the final version of the Paris Agreement was released. The plenary was originally set to reconvene at 3:45pm, after the delegates had time to review the new draft. But, in order to accommodate additional negotiation meetings, the plenary has now been rescheduled for 5:30pm. In the meantime, everyone is sitting in groups and circulating amongst constituents to review and discuss this historic document.
The venue is practically vibrating with anticipation. Yet, at the same time, there is an anticlimactic feeling in the air. Because the event was officially scheduled to end yesterday, the vendors have all vacated, the NGOs and other advocacy organizations have abandoned their posts, and most of the civil society members are either traveling home or are participating in the demonstrations throughout Paris. Booths are being deconstructed, rooms are emptying, and even the water fountains have been turned off. All of the remaining energy in the building is going toward high-level political meetings that will determine whether this agreement thrives or fails.
The mood in the observer hall rather accurately reflects my own personal feeling toward portions of the final version of the text. The agreement as a whole represents an historic shift in the global response to climate change. There are many ambitious provisions, and the Parties have done an admirable job compromising to create a workable agreement. For all those who have been lucky enough to be part of this process, it is a wonderful and exciting moment. However, the language related to the scale of developed countries’ financial commitment to climate change has been removed from the legally binding portion of the agreement, here, at the eleventh hour.
While the non-binding goal of the agreement calls upon the Parties to set a “new, collective quantified goal from a floor of USD 100 billion per year,” by 2025, the agreement itself only notes that, “mobilization of climate finance should represent a progression beyond previous efforts.” This organization leaves generic and ambiguous language in the heart of the agreement, and transitions the specific objectives to the unenforceable portion of the agreement. As someone who has focused on the finance components of this text for several months, this end result seems somewhat disappointing.
Nevertheless, this agreement does achieve many important goals and creates a framework to combat climate change that many did not think would be possible. All that is left is to wait for the Party representatives to approve it. As President Fabius noted this morning: “The world is holding its breath. It counts on all of us.”
For more articles by VLS COP21 Observer Delegation Click Here
The following article is part of an Eco-Perspective special in which the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law is collaborating with the VLS COP21 Observer Delegation
__________________________________________
By Annie Warner
At this morning’s Comité de Paris meeting, COP President Laurent Fabius channeled Nelson Mandela, saying: “It always seems impossible until it’s done.” At tonight’s COP meeting, Parties adopted the Paris Agreement in a historical and long-awaited moment. While past Agreement drafts have been full of brackets, options, and red line changes, these notations are notably absent from the final Paris Agreement.
With a green light (and ceremonial strike of a green gavel) for the Paris Agreement, it is worth taking a moment to pause and look at the final Agreement language in light of what came before it. Article 7 on Adaptation starts with a paragraph on the global goal on Adaptation. In the beginning of this week, it was unclear whether this goal for Adaptation would ensure Adaptation in the context of the global temperature goal. The final Agreement established the Adaptation response in the context of the temperature limit increase. This ensures that the global goal on Adaptation is grounded in a quantitative, and not only a qualitative, target. In the final Paris Agreement, this language was strengthened by adding that an Adaptation response must be “adequate.”
Paragraph 4 focuses on Adaptation needs and Adaptation in conjunction with Mitigation. The paragraph describes how greater levels of Mitigation can reduce the need for Adaptation effort. In the December 9 th and 10 th versions of the Agreement, this paragraph closed by referencing “that greater rates and magnitude of climate change increase the likelihood of exceeding adaptation limits.” This phrase referenced L&D from the permanent and irreversible impacts of climate change. It also acknowledged that Adaptation, Mitigation, and L&D are closely interlinked, and that attending to all of them is important. However, this phrase on L&D did not make it into the final Agreement text. This change is part of the larger uncertainty that has surrounded the issue of L&D.
In the beginning of this week, the fate of L&D in the Agreement was very uncertain. One text option briefly recognized the issue of L&D, with a footnote that the text could end up elsewhere in the Agreement likely in the article on Adaptation and not as its own article. Adaptation and L&D are separate issues that require different approaches, and therefore the final Agreement’s inclusion of a distinct Article on L&D is an accomplishment for the Paris Agreement. The December 10 th draft Agreement separated the intention on L&D from the implementation mechanism, the Warsaw International Mechanism on L&D (WIM). Importantly, the final Paris Agreement bridged this disconnect and integrated these issues, saying that “Parties should enhance understanding, action and support, including through the [WIM].” The duration of this mechanism will play an important role in ensuring the resilience of countries who face climate change impacts in the future.
After the adoption of the Paris Agreement, South Africa channeled Nelson Mandela again, in a statement that reflects today’s achievements and the many challenges that lie ahead in addressing climate change:
I have walked that long road to freedom. I have tried not to falter; I have made missteps along the way. But I have discovered the secret that after climbing a great hill, one only finds that there are many more hills to climb. I have taken a moment here to rest, to steal a view of the glorious vista that surrounds me, to look back on the distance I have come. But I can only rest for a moment, for with freedom come responsibilities, and I dare not linger, for my long walk is not ended.
For more articles by VLS COP21 Observer Delegation Click Here
The following article is part of an Eco-Perspective special in which the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law is collaborating with the VLS COP21 Observer Delegation
__________________________________________
By Bonnie Smith
Imagine a room full of delega tes from 196 different countries waiting to begin a high-stake negotiation. The cacophonous sound of conversations in dozens of languages reverberates around the room. The meeting commences and then proceeds in English.
Delegate after delegate raises concerns and offers ideal solutions to a controversial draft text addressing the problem of climate change. Sometimes the delegates argue for half an hour over the meaning of a single word. They are all working toward the same end goal: to produce a final climate change agreement by December 11. The delegates’ overarching goal is the same, but they approach it with different blue prints. They are trying to build a solid structure using a miscellany of materials that do not always dovetail .
Coming from so many backgrounds, the delegates do not only come to the negotiation table with differing positions on issues, but also with vastly differently ways of reading and interpreting language. As the delegates strive to work through substantive areas of disagreement and allow all voices to speak, one cannot help but wonder if a single, collective voice will form and sing out above the sonorities of divergence.
After a week of negotiations, the Parties agreed yesterday on a draft agreement to send to the Conference of the Parties (COP) next week. The draft is far from perfect and will require more negotiations between the Parties. It is, however, workable. Overall the Parties seemed optimistic during Saturday’s closing ADP plenary session. Speaking on behalf of the G-77 + China, South African Ambassador Nozipho Mxakato-Diseko said, “we have come a long way, but much more must be done next week to fulfill the task.” She struck an emotional and hopeful chord with the room with a quote from Nelson Mandela: ” It always seems impossible until it’s done.”
Having seen the Parties work past linguistic, cultural, and positional differences to produce a workable text for the COP to use next week has been inspiring for me. It has shown me the importance of remaining optimistic and hopeful during times of controversy, and also of focusing on shared end-goals while trying to achieve seemingly impossible agreements. I walk away from the first week of COP21 with optimism. Although it will be difficult, I believe the Parties will be able to focus on their collective, long-term goal of curbing the global temperature increase and will reach an agreement. The top of the tower is in sight.
For more articles by VLS COP21 Observer Delegation Click Here
The following article is part of an Eco-Perspective special in which the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law is collaborating with the VLS COP21 Observer Delegation
__________________________________________
By Annie Warner
Source: Ocean for Climate
“We are at a tipping point,” warned Angus Friday, Grenada’s Ambassador to the United States, in today’s side event on “The Importance of Addressing Oceans and Coasts in an Ambitious Agreement at the UNFCCC COP 21.” Speakers at the event reported on mobilization efforts around ocean and climate issues taking place at COP21, with emphasis on the most vulnerable people and ecosystems.
Dr. Biliana Cicin-Sain, President of the Global Ocean Forum, said that a new article in the Paris agreement on oceans is unlikely. However, she encouraged the more likely optionaccepting the suggested revision referring to oceans in the December 5 th draft agreement addendum. This textual suggestion to the preamble is in bold below:
Also recognizing the importance of the conservation and enhancement, as appropriate, of sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases referred to in Article 4, paragraph 1(d), of the Convention, including biomass, forests and oceans as well as other terrestrial, coastal and marine ecosystems, including through internationally agreed approaches [such as REDD-plus and the joint mitigation and adaptation approach for the integral and sustainable management of forests], and of their non-carbon co-benefits,
Whether this reference to oceans will be accepted in the final Paris agreement remains to be determined. Dr. Carol Turley, an ocean scientist at Plymouth Marine Laboratory stressed the pressing importance of this issue: “The ocean needs a voice, and the time is now to get the ocean into the text.”
For more articles by VLS COP21 Observer Delegation Click Here
The following article is part of an Eco-Perspective special in which the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law is collaborating with the VLS COP21 Observer Delegation
__________________________________________
By Kelsey Bain
Family Planning may be the most cost-effective weapon against climate change. At least according to a new report from the University of California, San Francisco’s Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health. According to the report, family planning could provide between 16 and 29 percent of the needed greenhouse gas emission reductions.
Additionally, last year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recognized for the first time the benefits of family planning for impacting climate change. The IPCC report recognized the importance of family planning in areas with a high vulnerability to climate change, including the Sahel region of Africa, as well as in rich countries like the United States. Increasing access to family planning not only helps reduce human suffering, especially in extremely vulnerable areas, but also decreases overall consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
Today the world population is over 7 billion, a number that is relatively recent in the history of human civilization. Between 1900 and 2000 the world population increased from 1.5 to 6.1 billion. That is, in just 100 years the population increased three times more than it had during the entire history of human kind. The effects of this astounding increase in human beings on the environment is staggering. Increasing populations threaten the survival of plant and animal species around the world, reduce air quality, increase energy demands, effect groundwater and soil health, reduce forests, expand deserts, and increase waste. And these effects will only get worse, as the United Nations predicts that the world population will reach 9.6 billion people by 2050.
According to the report from the Bixby Center, family planning programs are dollar-for-dollar the most effective way to avoid some of the worst impacts from climate change. There are currently 222 million women in the world with an unmet need for modern family planning methods. To meet this demand for family planning it will take $9.4 billion a year, an increase from current family planning spending by about $5.3 billion a year. Despite this high dollar value, family planning spending is still a relatively cheap option. According to the report, “For every $7 spent of family planning, carbon emissions would be reduced more than [one metric ton] the same emissions reductions from low-carbon energy production technologies would cost at least $32.”
Despite the cost-effectiveness, family planning still remains a contentious issue. But things may be looking up. As part of their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) countries must consider their population size and its potential growth in order to envision how per capita emissions may change in the future. The new UNFCCC synthesis report of INDCs takes into account different population growth scenarios for the next fifteen years, and suggests that some governments may not be using the best population data for calculating business as usual emissions scenarios. Additionally, in the report some governments state that population density and growth within their countries remains a constraint on their ability to adapt to climate change.
What this means is that family planning is necessary. Not only is it necessary on a human level (family planning is one of the best ways to improve education and quality of life for women around the globe), it remains one of the most effective tools at our disposal for combatting climate change.
For more articles by VLS COP21 Observer Delegation Click Here
The following article is part of an Eco-Perspective special in which the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law is collaborating with the VLS COP21 Observer Delegation
__________________________________________
By Professor Tracy Bach
If all politics are local, but greenhouse gases find their way into the atmosphere’s international space, how can the global community act collectively on climate change? In 1992, the solution was to adopt an international treaty. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) declared climate change a “common concern of mankind,” and committed 166 countries to tackling it. Most UNFCCC parties were developing countries, who had contributed relatively few emissions given their pre-industrial poverty but were nonetheless already experiencing the irreversible, negative effects of climate change. Under the convention’s principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capacities” (CBDRRC), developed countries and top greenhouse gas emitters like the European Union and the United States agreed to take the lead.
Yet, progress has been slow. In 2007, this leadership took the form of the UNFCCC’s Kyoto Protocol, which placed clear greenhouse gas emission limits on developed countries while imposing none on developing countries. When the United States refused to ratify, its emissions, along with those of rapidly industrializing developing countries like China, India, and Brazil, escaped international regulation. Consequently, when negotiations for continuing the protocol beyond its first 2008-2012 period faltered at COP15 in Copenhagen, a new approach to international limits on greenhouse gas emissions began to take shape. It gained momentum at the two subsequent conferences of parties (COPs) held in Cancun and Durban. Now, almost six years on, there is emerging agreement that all partiesdeveloped and developing countriesshould make individual, international climate change mitigation pledges determined by each party’s national government.
At COP21 in December, the current 196 UNFCCC parties will decide if they can sign on to this new paradigm of international climate change regulation. The Durban Mandate requires the parties to “develop a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties” by the end of 2015. In Paris from Nov. 30 to Dec. 11, 2015, the parties will have their last opportunity to shape the international climate change law that will take the place of the Kyoto Protocol when it ends in 2020.
During four negotiation sessions this year, the parties drafted a “Paris Package” that consists of a core legal agreement based on a system of nationally determined contributions and several COP decisions addressing implementation and political issues. The current 31-page draft agreement outlines how parties’ individual contributions will be internationally measured, reviewed, and verified. These pledges no longer focus solely on mitigation. Consistent with appeals from the developing world, the draft agreement pays almost equal attention to adaptation and finance actions. Likewise, it sets out conditions for transparent international reporting. Under it, parties take responsibility for determining whether their national efforts collectively keep global temperature rise below the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s recommended upper limit of 2 degrees Celsius.
This new system of national pledges that are internationally made and scrutinized for sufficiency had a trial run this year. By Oct. 1, 2015, 147 parties had submitted their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), covering approximately 86 percent of total global emissions. While each INDC derives from national priorities, overall they tend to include substantive contributions on mitigation, adaptation, and finance, as well as important process pledges on reporting and verification, technology transfer, and capacity building. Developed countries have pledged absolute mitigation targets and resources for vulnerable developing countries. Higher-income developing countries like Brazil, China, and Mexico have made concrete greenhouse gas mitigation pledges. Other developing countries have described their mitigation and adaptation efforts and goals, but made them conditional on receiving financial assistance. Transparency in this pledging process has been prioritized: INDCs are publicly available at the UNFCCC website and have been reviewed closely by the UNFCCC secretariat, non-governmental organization (NGOs), and the press.
That’s the good news. The bad news is that, at least in the short term, these intended contributions do not add up to keeping atmospheric warming below the 2-degree Celsius goal. A Nov. 1, 2015, UNFCCC report concluded that while the INDC pledgesif fulfilledwould slow down the global rate of greenhouse gas emissions, they will not maintain the global temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius. Likewise NGOs like Climate Action Tracker (CAT) and Climate Interactive reach the same conclusion. CAT calculates that achieving the unconditional INDC pledges would still likely lead to a 2.7-degree Celsius increase. Climate Interactive’s math adds up to a predicted 3.5-degree Celsius increase.
So how could COP21’s Paris Package address this shortfall and result in a new international agreement that leads parties to bend the global emissions curve to a 2-degree Celsius or lower pathway?
First, it would use these INDCs as a starting point only and include provisions in the new agreement that require all parties to increase their contributions in regular, transparent cycles. In this way, COP21 serves as “a way station in this fight, not a terminus,” as Bill McKibben recently wrote.
Second, it would emphasize the need for all parties to adapt to changes already locked in by historical emissions, and recognize the permanent loss and damage experienced by the most vulnerable developing countries.
Third, to achieve these first two, it would show agreement on the amount and kind of financing available for developing countries to achieve their pledges. COP15’s promise of mobilizing $100 billion per year by 2020 for mitigation and adaptation activities is still on the table. A recent OECD report indicates that climate finance reached $62 billion in 2014. But many note that mobilizing private finance is not the same as pledging public funds, and call for developed country governments to do more.
Fourth, it would include a COP decision that ramps up the INDC pledges before the new agreement takes effect in 2020. From now until then, non-state actors like cities, states, and provinces, as well as businesses and consumer groups, have focused their subnational powers on renewable energy and energy efficiency actions intended to narrow the emissions gap.
Fifth, it would reflect a new understanding of CBDRRC. While this core principle no longer translates into developing countries getting a bye on greenhouse gas emissions limits, it also does not exempt developed countries from their historical responsibility for climate change and their capacity to provide finance and technology for low- or no-carbon development. The deep tension over how to fairly bring all parties into a common framework that recognizes different starting points permeates the draft text through heavily [bracketed] language.
The UNFCCC requires consensus to lift these brackets. The negotiations thus far have produced little of it. Instead, despite its fractured international politics, the G77+China has flexed its negotiation muscle through disciplined coordination of member countries that otherwise align with the diverse agendas of the Africa Group, Arab Group, and Like Minded Developing Countries (LMDCs). AOSIS, which represents low-lying countries whose very existence is threatened by sea level rise, works with the least developed countries group (LDCs) to press for strong adaptation and loss and damage provisions. The E.U. and U.S. are committed to market mechanisms for achieving mitigation reductions and private climate financing along with government contributions. Two negotiating groups, the Environmental Integrity Group (EIG) and AILAC, seek to find common ground. The EIG is the only group that includes both developed and developing countries. AILAC’s members are middle-income Central and South American countries that are growing rapidly yet can still reorient toward low-carbon pathways. But these national negotiators can go only so far: While they are masters of the technical details and crafting precise legal language, it appears that the true power to compromise resides in their national capitals.
Leading up to COP21, weekly meetings of heads of state and their environmental, foreign affairs, and finance ministers have taken place. In this way, local politics are actively engaged on the international problem of climate change. All parties preparing for Paris have said clearly what they want to avoidno repeat of COP15, no “ghosts of Copenhagen” haunting COP21. It will be a day-by-day proposition with some bumpy rides along the way. Follow the journey here till its finish!
For more articles by VLS COP21 Observer Delegation Click Here
The following article is part of an Eco-Perspective special in which the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law is collaborating with the VLS COP21 Observer Delegation
__________________________________________
By Professor Tracy Bach
So says Bill McKibben in his recent New Yorker article chronicling the political shift on climate change he sees occurring right now. McKibben points to three recent events as indications of a successful peoples movement away from fossil fuels. First is President Obama’s decision last Friday not to grant a permit to Transcanada to build the Keystone Pipeline. Second is the growing understanding of why the world’s carbon reserves should stay in the ground, and the business decisions being made on it. Third is the rapid drop in renewable energy production costs and the concomitant growth in solar and wind as core, not fringe, energy sources.
Despite these trends, McKibben concludes that COP21 “will be a way station in this fight, not a terminus.” He concludes that while the peoples movement on climate change has touched the international negotiations – that “the proposed agreement for the talks reflects some of the political shift that’s happened in years since the failed negotiations at Copenhagen” – the agreement as is “won’t close that gap between politics and physics” because “almost no nation is stretching.”
For more articles by VLS COP21 Observer Delegation Click Here
The following article is part of an Eco-Perspective special in which the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law is collaborating with the VLS COP21 Observer Delegation
__________________________________________
By Madhavi Venkatesan
Each generation inherits a world that was created out of beliefs contemporary and relevant to a certain time. These beliefs affect prevailing values; values, which become embedded within the framework of decision-making. Often times, these values are based on beliefs that may no longer be understood, known or even correct. Nonetheless, they are transferred from one generation to the next and modified by another generation’s cumulative addition.
From this perspective, a lack of understanding of the beliefs that comprise the framework of society can eventually be problematic. And this is evident in the present period.
Let’s take a step back to the 1930’s when Simon Kuznets developed a method for assessing the production capacity of an economy. The method, which earned him the Nobel Prize in Economics, provided the foundation for the calculation of the gross domestic product. By definition gross domestic product or GDP is the sum of all goods and services produced within a country’s national borders during a specific time period; everything from desks to diapers can be included.
Since the 1940s , GDP has become a simple assessment tool of economic capacity between countries and over time within the same country. However as Kuznets warned, though the indicator is useful for determining production capacity, it is limited as a metric to evaluate the state of an economy’s inhabitants. GDP as a single aggregated value cannot assess quality of life and it cannot provide insight on the distribution of wealth.
In spite of the statements of Kuznets and other economists of the time and over time, GDP has arguably become the single metric of not only domestic economic progress but also global economic progress. As the indicator of progress it is the targeted metric of economic policy. GDP is tracked and targeted by government and central bank policy makers with the intent to increase its value over consecutive periods.
There are four components to GDP, consumption spending, investment spending -investment on production capacity, government spending and net exportsspending by foreigners for US goods relative to US spending on foreign goods. In the United States the single largest component of GDP, comprising in excess of 65% of GDP , is consumption. As a result, our economy is targeted to consumption, from increasing employment, to low interest rates, to the built-in obsolescence of the goods we purchase.
Given that GDP was established and gained global traction over 70 years ago, our value for consumption has been inherited and modified over a few generations. We have been taught that we have insatiable appetites to consume and have perpetuated the consumption cycle, to maintain the era of consumerism. But this may be the problem.
Fundamentally, consumers have focused on market price and have delegated the inclusion of value parameters including environmental and social costs to producers, but producers are incentivized to minimize cost and maximize return, a seemingly divergent incentive.
In most cases, market prices do not reflect the cost of a good. Lets look at a t-shirt manufactured in a developing country for sale in a developed market. The price of the t-shirt reflects only a portion of its true cost because it neglects social and environmental costs. The price neglects the costs of the exploited wage paid to the textile worker: the social cost resulting from his missing health care and the health and quality of life impact of the non-living wage. Though it does likely include transportation expense, it does not include the carbon footprint or the waste cost related to the landfilling or alternative disposal of the garment. In net, the cost of the consumption is only partially borne by the purchaser; other societies and the environment subsidize the price.
Consider the market price for the air we breath, there is no price, it is free and we need air to live. But, in spite of it being essential for life, it is a costless component of the production process; waste has been released into the air we breathe for years. If there had been a cost for disposal, or even better, a social value that prevented the release of air borne waste, the pollution that has collected in our atmosphere for the past three hundred years would have be significantly less. As simple as it may sound, consumers could have promoted the welfare of the atmosphere through their collective demand that air quality be preserved. How money is spent sends a very strong signal to producers of what will sell.
Both consumer awareness and economy-wide alignment are requisite to promote sustainable economic outcomes. This is, for example, evident in viewing the relationship between economic growth and carbon emissions over the past few hundred years. The energy consumption rates required to promote production and thereby foster consumption have enabled the speed of climate change activity being witnessed today. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is correlated to GDP growth; however, degradation and exploitation of the environment are also correlated with the present measure of economic growth.
COP21 will offer the needed international platform to evaluate the basis of climate change activity, which arguably is related to how we measure and drive economic growth. The inclusion of sustainable economic development within the Paris Package provides an opportunity for the inclusion of quality of life and ecosystem balance in the defining of economic growth. These elements essentially recognize that how we measure quality of life is fundamental to the economic outcomes we create. From this perspective COP21 could be the catalyst to move beyond GDP to determine a constructed international standard for economic progress. Ultimately, the goals of the UNFCCC to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human induced) interference with the climate system” may be better aligned with a measure such as gross national happiness , the better life index or a similar parameter. Further, the long term impact of COP21 may be dependent on explicitly promoting such a value shift.
For more articles by VLS COP21 Observer Delegation Click Here
