Cambridge Module 2

na

• Dec. 2019, EC presented European Green Deal, = make EU's economy sustainable. All sectors. Roadmap to climate neutrality by 2050 by implementation of European Climate Law. Also Final Circular Economy Package
• Carbon Neutrality Coalition by 2050 (17 countries) in line with Paris Agreement
• Cllimate Ambition Allliance, led by Chile and UK for net-zero targes by 2050 (countries, cities, companies and investors)
• 2018 Renewable energy targets adopted by 169 countreis
• Carbon Emission Cap  of China's 14th Year Plan for 2021-25 (cap and trade programme ... not too successful yet)
• India's Goal of having 40% non-fossil fuel by 2030

na

1. “Soft law” negotiations: These are non-binding or voluntary agreements that assist in framing sustainable development.

2. Treaty-based legal negotiations: Treaties are legally-binding agreements between nations that are party to the convention (where the treaty is negotiated) and that ratify the treaty (Lawrence, 2014). eg. Montreal protocol

1. Mandatory (i.e. law) no discretion
   1. Market-based instruments (MBIs)
   2. Non-MBI, so-called Command and Control Insturments CACs
2. Voluntary, (discretion ) change behaviour and accountability through transparency and pressure of market. 

A “combination approach” can enable a more systematic approach, but alignment of these approaches is important to prevent inconsistency, mixed-messages, duplication and excessive bureaucracy.

----> trade offs for winners-losers, ST vs LT

ETS = European Emissions Trading Scheme emerged from failed implementation of carbon tax. Based on cap (max. level of pollution acceptable) and distributing tradeable emissions permits. 

How are ETS created: initial allocation or auction

How work: Co's need to cover each unit of pollution they produce. 

Problem: Oversupply of certificates due to reduced coal use in many countries. Reforms in 2017 which addressed oversupply (aka back-loading)-. Prices around €24 

1. EU with 2 billion t of CO2
2. Korea 0.5 billion
3. California 0.5 billion (also other states under the regional greenhouse gas initiative)
4. Quebec 0.5 billion
5. china with pilot projet covering 1 billion

1. Sectoral coverage (eg. industry or energy generation)

2. Types of targets (absolute caps (EU and USA), Chinese use intensity relative metrics

3. Allocation

• Auctioning at beginning (only few)
• Grandfathering (allocation based on past emissions)
• For free (china)

EU: 40%

California/Quebec: 80%

RGGI (various states ins USA): 18%

China: >30%(power generation) and 50% (local carbon markets)

South Korea: 70%

The advantage of carbon pricing as a climate policy is that it can (if properly designed) generate the so called double divident – reduces emissions and raise revenues (that could be reinvested to reduce even more emissions!) 

In theory, this means you can simply calculate your total greenhouse gas emissions and pay into a scheme that offsets those emissions by the same amount – that way, on balance, your emissions are net zero. One example is the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), which sells carbon credits and puts the proceeds towards developing hydro electric power plants in Sri Lanka, forest planting projects in China or wind power in Costa Rica. The VCS database contains thousands of options for offsetting.

Over the past decade, market-driven declines in the price of renewable energy and natural gas have led to the closure of many coal power plants. But because electric rates in monopoly systems are set based on what’s needed for utilities to recover their costs, the utility companies have less incentive to retire uneconomical plants.

In theory stipulate clear outcomes. Bigger chances of adherence because of fines. Conversely, allow little room for flexibility and creativity --> pure compliance, although some say it still fosters innovation. 

• Imposing of pricing and quantity instruments
• targets
• sanctions
• bans
• labelling mandates
• mandatory standards
• reporting requirements

• Emission standards
• technology standards
• Product standards

• TCFD (Task force climate related disclsoures) 
• Paris agreement
• International Integrated Reporting Framework
• SASB
• CDP

na

na

yes

Implementation requires economic and social transformation, based on best available science.

5 year cycle of increasing ambitious climate action

Countries submit their Nationally determined contributions (NDCs) to reach GHG goals, in addition to build resilience to adapt.

LT strategies. submit by 2020, LT low greenhouse gas emission development strategies (LT-LEDS) (unlike NDC they are not mandatory)

Countries are given technical and capacity building support

Developed countries should take lead in providing financial assistance and tech transfer and capacity building.

Track progress with ETF (enhanced transparency framework starting in 2024)

• 25% Electricity Production
  • 12% used in buildings
  • 11% used in industry
  • 2% other
• 24% Food, Agriculture, Land use
  • 9% Deforastation
  • 5% Methane from Animals
• 21% Industry
• 14% Transportation
  • 10% Road
  • 2% Flying
• 6% Buildings

• claims about potential size of sinks, especially in regenerative agriculture and tree planting
• Time lags between measure and effect
• Permanence or temporary
• Verifiable
• Truly additional offsets or would happen anyway
• Leakages in other parts of the economy
• Equity and justice (keep polluting in poor areas?)
• Other impacts

Human Development Index (HDI) by UN-Human Development. Ranks each country by

• purchasing power / income
• Health
• Literacy

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations^[1][2] that is dedicated to providing the world with objective, scientific information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of the risk of human-induced^[3] climate change, its natural, political, and economic impacts and risks, and possible response options.^[4]

In descening order

1. changes in land and sea use
2. direct exploitation of organism
3. Climate change
4. pollution
5. invasive species.

Sustainable consumption and production

Eco-efficiency begins with the assumption of a one-way, linear flow of materials through industrial systems: raw materials are extracted from the environment, transformed into products, and eventually disposed of. In this system, eco- efficient techniques seek only to minimise the volume, velocity, and toxicity of the material flow system, but are incapable of altering its linear progression. Some materials are recycled, but often as an end-of-pipe solution, since these materials are not designed to be recycled. Instead of true recycling, this process is actually downcycling, a downgrade in material quality, which limits usability and maintains the linear, cradle-to-grave dynamic of the material flow system.

Ecoeffectivness proposes the transformation of products and their associated material flows such that they form a supportive relationship with ecological systems and future economic growth. The goal is not to minimise the cradle-to-grave flow of materials, but to generate cyclical, cradle-to-cradle ‘metabolisms’ that enable materials to maintain their status as resources and accumulate intelligence over time (upcycling). 

1. Improving existing operational efficiency, such as energy efficiency and capturing heat during manufacturing processes.
    
2. Making manufacturing more fundamentally sustainable, like using less material by design and developing longer-life products. 

Global corporations are increasingly exploring the benefits of sourcing from smallholder producers (Oxfam, 2011). As indicated by the Food Sustainability Index, food produced and not eaten accounts for about 3.3 gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions. A significant portion of that loss is attributable to the lack of infrastructure in developing countries. The fact that 795 million people go hungry is not about global production levels; it is largely a matter of poverty and inequality, and the exclusion of small-scale producers from larger food systems

Several key limits concern not the earth^s stocks but its ability to act as a sink for pollution. 

• SDG relevant to developed and developing countries despite differences (eg. consumption pattern differences between poor and rich countries)
• Business view, that Consumption can go on endlessly thanks to technological innovation. S is a business opportunity! Not consuming less but differently.
• Internalize costs (polluter pay principle) plus Lifecycle approach
• Technology transfer to developing countries contentious 
• SDG 12 doesn't adequately address consumption
• not quantitative targets

The use of services and related products, which respond to basic needs and bring a better quality of life while minimising the use of natural resources and toxic materials as well as the emissions of waste and pollutants over the life cycle of the service or product so as not to jeopardise the needs of future generations.

Rio +20

Kyoto Protocol

SDGs

World Summit on Sustainable Development

This set of notes introduces the concept of SCP and explores key drivers, including systems thinking, the circular economy approach, and sustainable business models. The manufacturing and agricultural (food production) aspects of sustainable production are also covered, along with the role of the consumer and business in sustainable consumption practices. Lastly, a case is made for taking an integrated approach to SCP by incorporating it across the value chain.

• systems approach
• circular not linear
• sharing and collaborative consumption (functionality instead of ownership)

na

SI looks at whole landscapes and ecosystems to optimise resource utilisation and management. Farmers must produce more from the same area of land and use fewer inputs while producing greater yields.