Topic: united kingdom

ADVISORY: WRI's Stories to Watch 2013

James Anderson — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 14:03:26 -0500

WRI will host its 10th annual Stories to Watch event on Tuesday, January 15, 2013, at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. Dr. Andrew Steer, WRI’s President & CEO, will present insights into the big environmental and international development trends and events that will affect people and the planet in 2013.

Topics will likely include: What will the Obama Administration do to address climate and energy? How will China’s new leadership advance its goal of “ecological progress”? What countries will emerge on the forefront of sustainability? And, how will financial constraints impact businesses seeking to shift to a more sustainable pathway?

A continental breakfast will be served.

WHAT
World Resources Institute’s Stories to Watch 2013

WHO
Dr. Andrew Steer, President & CEO, World Resources Institute.

Dr. Steer is a leading expert on economic development and environmental issues. He has three decades of experience working on international development and on the front lines in Asia and Africa, and at a senior level in international policy roles.

WHERE
National Press Club
Holeman Lounge
529 14th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20045

CALL-IN INFO
USA (Toll Free): (866) 803-2143
International (Toll): + 1 (210) 795-1098

Access code: “WRI”

WHEN
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
9:00 - 10:30 a.m. ET

Use #STW2013 on Twitter.

RSVP required to press@wri.org

Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in the UK: An Overview of the Current Policy Landscape

Sarah Parsons — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 11:39:44 -0500

Executive Summary

Domestic legislation – the Climate Change Act 2008 – commits the United Kingdom to an 80 percent emission reduction by 2050 on 1990 levels, and to a system of 5-year carbon budgets to progress toward that target. These carbon budgets require UK emission reductions on 1990 levels of 34 percent by 2020 and 50 percent by 2025. The Carbon Plan, published in December 2011, sets out the UK Government’s plans to keep within its carbon budgets. An independent body – the Committee on Climate Change – advises the government on the setting of carbon targets, and reports to Parliament annually on progress. The UK also has commitments under EU-wide emission reduction targets.

This report summarizes key UK policies already enacted and in development that are likely to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions across the UK, discusses the implications of the current policy scenario for the country’s GHG trajectory, and identifies issues to watch going forward. Policy measures currently in place to reduce UK GHG emissions include the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), a key policy lever covering emissions from power generation and energy-intensive industry; the EU Renewable Energy Directive, under which the UK has a target to increase the share of renewables in final energy to 15 percent in 2020; and energy efficiency programs for residential buildings, requirements to reduce average new car and van emissions, and a range of other measures across the rest of the economy, not covered by the EU ETS.

Our analysis and the government’s own projections suggest the UK is on course to meet its carbon budgets out to 2022 – and, consequently, its share of the EU’s commitment under the UNFCCC. Meeting the fourth carbon budget (2023–27), however, will require a further acceleration of emission reduction, suggesting the need for emissions in the third budget period (2018–22) to be significantly below the legislated level. To secure such an outcome requires strong and timely implementation of additional measures, with quicker delivery than in the past.

If future carbon budgets are to be met, progress in emission reduction must accelerate. The government is moving forward with plans to reform the electricity market through a system of long-term contracts designed to give greater confidence in investment in low-carbon generation. A new flagship energy efficiency policy – the Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation – is being introduced. It is not clear whether this will deliver on the required scale. Looking forward, key issues will be around the strength of implementation of policies currently being developed (especially electricity market reform and the Green Deal) and the review of the fourth carbon budget (covering emissions in 2023–27), which the government plans to undertake in 2014.

Overview of UK Fast-Start Finance

Kevin Lustig — Thu, 17 May 2012 13:54:20 -0400

Open Climate Network Analysis

Kevin Lustig — Thu, 17 May 2012 12:16:37 -0400

Use the list to the right to explore available analysis from the Open Climate Network »

The UK Fast-Start Finance Contribution

Kevin Lustig — Thu, 17 May 2012 11:21:25 -0400

Executive Summary

OpenClimateNetwork.org

Visit openclimatenetwork.org for the latest analysis, project info, expert perspectives and more.

Developed country governments have repeatedly committed to provide new and additional finance to help developing countries transition to low-carbon and climate-resilient growth. This assessment considers UK efforts to provide “fast start finance” (FSF) in 2010/11 and 2011/12 in the context of the pledge by developed countries to mobilise funds approaching USD 30 billion from 2010 to 2012 under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It is part of a series of studies scrutinising how developed countries are defining, delivering, and reporting FSF.

The UK has a major role to play in delivering FSF. It is one of the richer economies in the developed world. Like other developed countries, it bears historic responsibility for contributing to the global accumulation of greenhouse gases. Key characteristics of the UK FSF contribution are quantified in Figure 1.

The UK has made a substantial effort to mobilise climate finance. Finance has been channelled through the Environmental Transformation Fund in 2010/11 and through the International Climate Fund (ICF) in 2011/12. GBP 1.06 billion had been spent and committed as of November 2011. It has also committed climate finance beyond the FSF period through the International Climate Fund (ICF), which will spend GBP 2.9 billion between April 2011 and March 2015.

The majority of UK finance is spent by multilateral institutions, in the form of capital contributions. UK contributions of GBP 715 million to the Climate Investment Funds (CIFs) administered by the World Bank in partnership with Regional Development Banks constitute the largest share of its FSF.

*The UK does not count private finance toward its FSF contribution, but it does count non-grant instruments as well as development assistance.** The majority of the projects supported do seem to have climate change as a principal objective.

While the FSF contribution reflects some new effort to address climate change, it is unclear that the contribution as a whole can be considered “new and additional.” Since the start of the FSF period, the UK has substantially increased international finance that explicitly targets climate change. The UK is also counting as FSF projects and programmes that it was funding – and that were likely delivering climate benefits – prior to the FSF period. Much of the funding counted was pledged prior to the FSF period, notably the contributions to the CIFs and Congo Basin Forest Fund. Climate finance appears to be increasing at a significantly faster rate than development assistance.

The UK is relatively transparent about its FSF spend, but more can be done. The UK discloses a list of projects and programmes to which FSF has been directed to interested stakeholders, and to the European Commission (EC) on an annual basis. The UK’s adoption of new transparency standards for its administrative processes is substantially strengthening its performance in this regard. Specifically, it participates in the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) for its official development assistance (ODA) spending. In this context, government departments are now required to disclose the business case for all projects that receive public support. A business case presents the key components and purpose of the programme, and how it contributes to the achievement of relevant government UK strategic objectives. This includes relatively comprehensive information on the institutions receiving funding and implementing projects.

There is a need to improve access to information in practice. The commitment to disclose business cases was made in January 2011 and has not been applied retroactively. In practice, few business cases have yet been made available. We do note some discrepancies between aggregate and project-level reporting, although we recognise that the project list is a snapshot at a given moment in time of the collection of FSF recipients. As new systems to improve reporting and disclosure on the status of programmes funded by the UK government are implemented, we should expect to see higher levels of transparency realised in practice.

We recommend that the UK:

Disclose underpinning project-level spending information alongside aggregate reporting
Ensure that project lists consistently specify the recipient institution for finance to reduce discrepancies and enhance transparency
Work in cooperation with other donors and multilateral institutions to strengthen and harmonise reporting on climate finance, particularly with regards to the status of disbursement
Ensure that business cases for approved projects are publicly disclosed in a timely manner by all ICF implementing departments

RELEASE: WRI Names Andrew Steer as New President

Michael Oko — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:36:12 -0400

World Bank Economist and Special Envoy for Climate Change to Lead Global Institute Known for Excellence and Impact

The World Resources Institute today named Dr. Andrew D. Steer as its next president. Steer is a highly-recognized leader in economics and environmental issues, who brings a breadth of international expertise to the Institute. Steer will take the helm of WRI, as it celebrates its 30th anniversary of developing solutions to the world’s most urgent environmental and human development challenges.

“Andrew is a dynamic and gifted leader, with a deep knowledge of sustainability issues and on-the-ground experience in the world’s most rapidly developing economies. As these issues become more urgent, Andrew is ideally suited to lead WRI in achieving its mission,” said James A. Harmon, Chairman of WRI’s Board of Directors. “A passionate and eloquent communicator, Andrew will champion the organization’s evidence-based and results-focused approach to build a healthier and more sustainable planet.”

Dr. Steer is currently serving as the Special Envoy for Climate Change at the World Bank, where he helps guide the Bank Group’s climate change activities in over 130 countries. He co-chairs the Strategic Climate Fund and leads the Bank Group efforts with international negotiators and in promoting pro-development solutions to climate change. Steer also serves on UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s High Level Group on Sustainable Energy for All and on the B20 Board on Green Growth (the private sector wing of the G20).

“I am deeply honored and delighted to be stepping into this role for such an extraordinary organization, with its history of innovative and transformative solutions to environmental and development challenges,” said Steer. “In the coming decade, we will face unparalleled challenges and opportunities, and WRI, with its global focus and high-quality analysis, is ideally equipped to find solutions. I look forward to leading the organization into the next stage of its remarkable history.”

WRI is a global, independent think tank that goes beyond research to put ideas into action, working with governments, companies, and civil society to build solutions to urgent environmental and human development challenges.

Steer arrives at WRI at a key moment in its evolution. In recent years, the organization has been expanding its global presence. WRI has been deepening its engagement in China and India, and is active in 40 additional countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Since 2008, WRI’s staff has grown from 160 to 225 people and its operations have expanded from $26 million to $45 million.

“This appointment is great news for WRI and for all who care about environment and development issues,” said Robert B. Zoellick, President of the World Bank Group. “WRI has a distinguished record at the key intersection between development and the natural environment, and I am confident that under Andrew’s able leadership its future impact will be even stronger. Andrew brings deep technical, policy, and political experience in the field of sustainable development. He played a superb role as Special Envoy and helped make the World Bank part of the solution to climate change.”

Steer has held leadership roles at the World Bank and the UK government, including Director of the Bank’s Environment Department, and Bank Country Director for Indonesia and Vietnam. From 2007 to 2010, he was Director General for Policy and Research at the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID). Steer has a PhD in Economics, and has taught and lectured at several universities.

James Harmon also reflected on the passion and dedication of Manish Bapna, WRI’s managing director, who has served as the organization’s acting president since July 2011.

“As acting president, Manish not only helped to sustain WRI; he made it stronger,” said Harmon. “He helped advance the organization’s program goals and enhanced its financial stability, including expanding our engagement in China, India and Brazil.”

Steer will begin his tenure as WRI’s president in August 2012. Until then, Bapna will continue to serve as the acting president.

Steer takes the helm as WRI’s third president, following two highly-respected environmental leaders: Jonathan Lash (president from 1993-2011), now President of Hampshire College; and James Gustave Speth (1982-1993), currently Professor of Law at Vermont Law School.

# # # #

Read an article in the New York Times on the announcement, here.

ADVISORY: Global Launch of New Standards to Measure Corporate Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Michael Oko — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:12:51 -0400

Two new international standards will be launched at events in New York and London to enable corporations to measure and manage greenhouse gas emissions across their entire value chain and product lifecycle. The standards will be released on Tuesday, October 4, 2011, at Citigroup in New York City and RSA House in London.

The new Corporate Value Chain Standard reveals the biggest opportunities for organizations to make more sustainable decisions about their activities and the products they produce, buy, and sell. The new Product Lifecycle Standard will enable companies to measure the GHG emissions of an individual product using a credible international approach.

The standards are being released by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, a global collaboration led by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD).

The events will feature business leaders and sustainability experts from leading companies and associations. The NY press event will be followed immediately by two panel discussions with business leaders, moderated by Eric Roston, Sustainability Editor, Bloomberg News, and Ed Crooks, US Industry and Energy Editor, Financial Times.

WHAT
Global Launch of the GHG Protocol Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) and Product Lifecycle Standards in New York City. (See the full agenda, here).

WHO
* Linda Fisher, VP for Safety Health & Environment and Chief Sustainability Officer, Dupont
* Edwin Pinero, Executive Vice President and Chief Sustainability Officer, Veolia Water, North America
* Manish Bapna, Interim President, WRI
* Thierry Berthoud, Managing Director of Energy and Climate, WBCSD
* Pankaj Bhatia, Director, Greenhouse Gas Protocol, WRI

WHEN
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Press Conference: 9:00 – 10:15 a.m. EST, followed by two panel discussions

WHERE
Citigroup (Map)
388 Greenwich Street, Greenwich Rooms, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10013

A light breakfast and refreshments will be served.

RSVP is required by Thursday, September 29, 2011. Media should RSVP to: press@wri.org

NOTE: For more information about the London event, see: http://bit.ly/ghgpLOND

United Kingdom Adopts Ambitious Climate Change Target

Jennifer Morgan — Tue, 17 May 2011 14:00:29 -0400

Today, the government of the United Kingdom took a significant step to shift to a low-carbon economy, providing clear signals to investors that the UK wants to host large-scale clean energy projects moving forward.

The agreement announced today takes the form of a legally binding target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2025, as part of the country’s fourth carbon budget. The agreement of the country’s conservative and liberal democrat parties extends current targets and continues the country on an aggressive reduction path from 2023-2027.

This move sends a signal to the international community that action on climate is a priority for the economy as well as the environment. As Chris Huhne, Energy and Climate Change Secretary said in announcing the target:

It will establish our competitive advantage in the most rapidly growing sectors of the world economy, generate jobs and export opportunities in these sectors, maintain energy security and protect our economy from oil price volatility.

Studies have shown that clean energy investments thrive where there is stable policy support, and setting targets is a critical first step.

The agreement was informed by the Committee on Climate Change, which calls for 80 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2050, a recommendation that is in line with what most scientists suggest is necessary to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

While the target is aggressive, in 2014 it will be reviewed against the European Union’s emissions trajectory and the government could adjust the target if the country’s reductions are more aggressive than those in the rest of the EU. To achieve the target, policymakers both within the UK and in the EU will have to develop realistic policies that can facilitate the transition to low-carbon energy.

PRESS RELEASE: New initiative announced to help ICT industry measure carbon footprint

Michael Oko — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 15:52:23 -0500

New global guidance will provide common approaches for calculating carbon emissions of ICT products and services

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) companies and their customers will soon have common approaches and methodologies to calculate the carbon footprints of ICT products and services thanks to industry guidance due to be published at the end of the year.

The guidance is being developed through a collaboration between the World Resources Institute (WRI), the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), the Global e-Sustainability Initiative (GeSI), and the Carbon Trust. It will also involve NGOs, government experts and academics.

GeSI is playing a leading role in bringing ICT companies on board and in promoting the initiative to the ICT industry. Already a number of major global ICT companies have committed their support.

It is expected that the new guidance will encourage companies to measure, report, and reduce the carbon footprint of their ICT products and services, thus contributing to global emission reductions.

This guidance will be published as an ICT Sector Supplement to the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol Product Accounting and Reporting Standard - part of the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative, which is the most widely used global accounting and reporting standard for corporate GHG emissions.

“This inclusive and transparent guidance development process will help facilitate broader engagement and buy-in from important participants in the ICT sector and enable these companies to better measure and track their performance,” said Pankaj Bhatia, GHG Protocol Director, WRI, “This, in turn, can help drive more effective strategic planning and decision making and, ultimately, facilitate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.”

“Credible measurements can drive emission reductions, by increasing competition for low-carbon products and services”, stated Luis Neves, GeSI Chairman, on behalf of the ICT industry, “Establishing a framework for credible measurement of the carbon footprint of ICT products is a major step towards meeting our commitments to cut emissions, and shows that the ICT sector is serious about our commitment to the climate.”

Matthew Bateson, Managing Director for Energy and Climate at WBCSD says, “The development of guidance for the ICT sector is a positive next step to support the implementation of the GHG Protocol Product Standard. The specific guidance can lead to more comparable results and improved business decision making - reducing overall GHG impacts.”

Hugh Jones, Managing Director Advisory Services, Carbon Trust, commented, “This is an important project which will provide ICT companies worldwide with a much-needed, consistent and credible way to measure the carbon impact of their products and services. The Carbon Trust is pleased to bring to the table its experience of developing carbon footprint methodologies and of working with industries and individual businesses to assess and reduce their carbon emissions. We look forward to working in collaboration with GeSI, WRI, WBCSD and leading ICT companies.”

PRESS RELEASE: 75% of World’s Coral Reefs Currently Under Threat, New Analysis Finds

Michael Oko — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 21:55:53 -0500

“Reefs at Risk Revisited” report presents comprehensive analysis of threats to coral reefs

A new comprehensive analysis finds that 75 percent of the world’s coral reefs are currently threatened by local and global pressures. For the first time, the analysis includes threats from climate change, including warming seas and rising ocean acidification. The report shows that local pressures— such as overfishing, coastal development, and pollution— pose the most immediate and direct risks, threatening more than 60 percent of coral reefs today.

“Reefs at Risk Revisited,” the most detailed assessment of threats to coral reefs ever undertaken, is being released by the World Resources Institute with the Nature Conservancy, the WorldFish Center, the International Coral Reef Action Network, Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, and the UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Center, along with a network of more than 25 organizations. Launch activities are taking place in Washington, D.C., London, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Caribbean, Australia, and other locations around the world.

“This report serves as a wake-up call for policy-makers, business leaders, ocean managers, and others about the urgent need for greater protection for coral reefs,” said Dr. Jane Lubchenco, under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. “As the report makes clear, local and global threats, including climate change, are already having significant impacts on coral reefs, putting the future of these beautiful and valuable ecosystems at risk.”

Local pressures – especially overfishing and destructive fishing – are causing many reefs to be degraded. Global pressures are leading to coral bleaching from rising sea temperatures and increasing ocean acidification from carbon dioxide pollution. According to the new analysis, if left unchecked, more than 90 percent of reefs will be threatened by 2030 and nearly all reefs will be at risk by 2050.

“Coral reefs are valuable resources for millions of people worldwide. Despite the dire situation for many reefs, there is reason for hope,” said Lauretta Burke, senior associate at WRI and a lead author of the report. “Reefs are resilient, and by reducing the local pressures we can buy time as we find global solutions to preserve reefs for future generations.”

The report includes multiple recommendations to better protect and manage reefs, including through marine protected areas. The analysis shows that more than one-quarter of reefs are already encompassed in a range of parks and reserves, more than any other marine habitat. However, only six percent of reefs are in protected areas that are effectively managed.

“Well managed marine protected areas are one of the best tools to safeguard reefs,” said Mark Spalding, senior marine scientist at the Nature Conservancy and a lead author of the report. “At their core, reefs are about people as well as nature: ensuring stable food supplies, promoting recovery from coral bleaching, and acting as a magnet for tourist dollars. We need apply the knowledge we have to shore up existing protected areas, as well as to designate new sites where threats are highest, such as the populous hearts of the Caribbean, Southeast Asia, East Africa and the Middle East.”

Reefs offer multiple benefits to people and the economy – providing food, sustaining livelihoods, supporting tourism, protecting coasts, and even helping to prevent disease. According the report, more than 275 million people live in the direct vicinity (30 km/18 miles) of coral reefs. In more than 100 countries and territories, coral reefs protect 150,000 km (over 93,000 miles) of shorelines, helping defend coastal communities and infrastructure against storms and erosion.

For the first time, the report identifies the 27 nations most socially and economically vulnerable to coral reef degradation and loss. Among these, the nine most vulnerable countries are: Haiti, Grenada, Philippines, Comoros, Vanuatu, Tanzania, Kiribati, Fiji, and Indonesia.

“The people at greatest risk are those who depend heavily on threatened reefs, and who have limited capacity to adapt to the loss of the valuable resources and services reefs provide,” said Allison Perry, project scientist at the WorldFish Center and a lead author. “For highly vulnerable nations – including many island nations – there is a pressing need for development efforts to reduce dependence on reefs and build adaptive capacity, in addition to protecting reefs from threats.”

The report is an update of “Reefs at Risk,” released by WRI in 1998, which served as an important resource for policymakers to understand and address the threats of reefs. The new report uses the latest data and satellite information to map coral reefs— including a reef map with a resolution 64 times higher than the original report.

“Through new technology and improved data, this study provides valuable tools and information for decision makers from national leaders to local marine managers,” said Katie Reytar, research associate at WRI and a lead author. “In order to maximize the benefits of these tools, we need policymakers to commit to greater action to address the growing threats to coral reefs.”

Find out more at: www.wri.org/reefs

# # # #

The World Resources Institute (WRI) is a global environmental think tank that goes beyond research to put ideas into action. We work with governments, companies, and civil society to build solutions to urgent environmental challenges. (www.wri.org)

The Nature Conservancy(TNC) is a leading conservation organization working around the world to protect ecologically important lands and waters for nature and people. The Conservancy and its more than one million members have protected more than 480,000 sq km of land and engage in more than100 marine conservation projects. The Conservancy is actively working on coral reef conservation in 24 countries, including the Caribbean and the Coral Triangle. (www.nature.org)

WorldFish Center is an international, nonprofit, nongovernmental organization dedicated to reducing poverty and hunger by improving fisheries and aquaculture. Working in partnership with a wide range of agencies and research institutions, WorldFish carries out research to improve small-scale fisheries and aquaculture. Its work on coral reefs includes ReefBase, the global information system on coral reefs. (www.worldfishcenter.org)

International Coral Reef Action Network (ICRAN) is a global network of coral reef science and conservation organizations working together and with local stakeholders to improve the management of coral reef ecosystems. ICRAN facilitates the exchange and replication of good practices in coral reef management throughout the world’s major coral reef regions. (www.icran.org)

United Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) is an internationally recognized center for the synthesis, analysis, and dissemination of global biodiversity knowledge. UNEP-WCMC provides authoritative, strategic, and timely information on critical marine and coastal habitats for conventions, countries, organizations, and companies to use in the development and implementation of their policies and decisions. (www.unep-wcmc.org)

Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN) is an operational unit of the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI) charged with coordinating research and monitoring of coral reefs. The network, with many partners, reports on ecological and socioeconomic monitoring and produces Status of Coral Reefs of the World reports covering more than 80 countries and states. (www.gcrmn.org)

MEDIA ADVISORY: "Reefs at Risk Revisited" Launch at National Press Club, Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Michael Oko — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 18:16:06 -0500

Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator, NOAA, and leading experts discuss “Reefs at Risk Revisited” report findings and solutions.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A new comprehensive analysis of the threats to coral reefs will be launched globally on Wednesday, February 23, 2011. More than 25 partners contributed to the report, and events will take place in Washington, D.C.; London, England; Malaysia; Australia; and other locations.

The D.C. event at the National Press Club will feature Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator, NOAA; Jonathan Lash, President, WRI; Lauretta Burke, lead author, WRI; and Dr. Nancy Knowlton, Chair of Marine Science, Smithsonian Institution.

The groundbreaking report, “Reefs at Risk Revisited,” is the most detailed assessment of threats to coral reefs ever undertaken. Led by the World Resources Institute, along with the Nature Conservancy, the WorldFish Center, ICRAN, UNEP-WCMC, and GCRMN, it maps out local and global pressures on reefs; assesses the vulnerability of people in reef-dependent countries; and provides recommendations to safeguard reefs in the future.

WHAT:
“Reefs at Risk Revisited” launch event in Washington, D.C.

WHO:
Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Jonathan Lash, President, World Resources Institute
Lauretta Burke, Senior Associate and Lead Author, World Resources Institute
Dr. Nancy Knowlton, Sant Chair for Marine Science, Smithsonian Institution

WHEN:
Wednesday, February 23, 2011

TIME:
9:30 a.m. EST

WHERE:
National Press Club, Holeman Lounge 529 14th St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20045

CALL-IN:
US/Toll Free: (888) 989-5157 or
Int’l: +1 (517) 308-9270
Passcode: REEFS

RSVP REQUIRED: press@wri.org

Light breakfast and coffee will be served.

Cap-and-Trade Comes Of Age in Europe

Jill Duggan — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:58:55 -0500

How industry has learned to live with (and perhaps even love) cap-and-trade in Europe.

This piece is second in a series from Visiting Senior Fellow Jill Duggan:

On a dank, dark day in February 2004, thousands of worried executives from British industries filled the halls of the UK’s National Exhibition Centre in Birmingham. The country was about to begin participating in the first multi-national cap-and-trade programme for capping greenhouse gases, the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Industry representatives were there to question government officials on the recently published Draft National Allocation Plan that set out the rules for allocating permits. This new system, they feared, would change the very way they had to do business, and they wanted to make sure their companies were not placed at a disadvantage.

Two years later, and a year after the EU cap-and-trade system officially began, the UK government held another stakeholder event – this time for the 2nd Draft National Allocation Plan for the 2008-2012 phase of the EU ETS. This meeting could not have been more different. In place of thousands of anxious industry representatives, there were only around 200 people. The air of apprehension had dissipated.

Once trading began, industry attitudes towards cap-and-trade started to change.

What happened? Once trading began, industry attitudes towards cap-and-trade started to change.

Industry Lobbying: A Prisoners’ Dilemma

Industry lobbying prior to the introduction of the EU ETS was intense. While some industry associations were broadly supportive of cap-and-trade as an approach – because it was the cheapest way to cut emissions – individual industry representatives were often relentless in pursuing, quite naturally, the best possible outcome for their own companies. In this case, that meant the maximum number of free allocations, or pollution “credits.”

And while industry sought allocations, European Member States understandably were implementing the new cap-and-trade legislation with their domestic economic interests at heart. There was a lot of talk by both countries and companies on the need for simplicity and transparency, but many would plead that they should be treated as ‘special cases’ or exceptions to the rules. Of course, more special cases meant less simplicity and transparency.

The initial efforts to establish the EU ETS were characterized by a “prisoners’ dilemma,” in which complexity and lack of transparency leads to a lack of trust. Without transparency, companies and countries alike suspect others of gaining an unfair advantage. But transparency makes tougher targets more acceptable, because participants can see that their competitors face the same challenges and constraints. There is a natural tendency for countries and companies to want to favor their own, when in fact they gain more certainty and stability by collaborating.

Changing Industry Attitudes

Fortunately, this lesson was not lost. By the time of the consultation for the second phase (2008-2012), trading had started, cap-and-trade had become a known commodity, and many of their concerns had not materialized. As I mentioned in my previous article, that first phase of the EU ETS now looks like it generated significant emissions reductions at far lower costs, and pain, than anticipated. The system, after some initial bumps, was working.

Companies increasingly understood the need for transparency. While lobbying did continue, the second allocation plans were marked by greater understanding and acceptance, and greater willingness to compromise in order to achieve the higher prizes of trust and transparency.

Adapting to the System

Europe has now had nearly 5 years of successful trading, and industries have adapted to the new system. Now that they are familiar with how it works, parties have agreed to rule changes that they would have found difficult to agree to at the start. For example, electricity generators will have to buy all their permits from 2013, instead of receiving at least some of them for free.

Companies have also adapted to the carbon price. In 2006, only 15% of the companies covered by the ETS were taking the future cost of carbon into account. Point Carbon and others found that a year later, about 65% of companies in the trading system were making their future investment decisions based on having a carbon price.

Recent studies¹ show how industries have adapted to the trading system and realized that many of their initial concerns were unfounded or overstated. One found that:

The EU ETS has not resulted in significant costs to business to date, especially when compared to the impact of other facts such as energy price fluctuations and economic downturn…

So far there has been no major impact on companies’ competitiveness: they have not relocated their operations, reduced their workforce, or lost market share as a result of carbon pricing…None has cut jobs or shut down operations as a direct result of climate-related policies, and their financial performance and global market share have not changed relative to their competitors…

(An exception to this reassuring picture is the extremely energy intensive aluminum sector, which has lobbied hard to be included in the EU ETS and will now be covered from 2013. The best way for this sector to mitigate the impact of the carbon price – until such time as there is a global carbon constraint – is by some amount of free allocation, which they will get as part of the system.)

Concerns that industry would relocate to developing countries appears to be unfounded. One study finds that “the economic impact is imperceptible,” the “European economy has not been ‘wrecked’” and there has been “no evidence of carbon leakage through trade,” meaning that carbon pollution has not simply been exported elsewhere.²

In fact the Climate Group/GMF survey seems to suggest that companies adjust quickly and benefit from the new system:

Companies have improved their monitoring and reporting of emissions and realized energy efficiency gains…

and often become supportive of EU climate policy once they get their feet wet. Says one company representative:

At first, we thought the EU ETS would die quietly after 2-3 years – but it didn’t…[now] management really support the EU’s goals on climate change. Our CEO has sent a letter of support of the 20-20-20 policy ³ to the EU Commission.

A financial analyst remarked:

The main change has been in attitudes toward climate legislation. Companies aren’t saying ‘it’s a complete disaster’ anymore. We see a bit of that positioning now in the US and Australia, where similar legislation is being considered. But you don’t tend to get that response in Europe anymore. Companies see lots of opportunities to invest in new assets and create shareholder value.

Legislators in the U.S. will, I am sure, recognize the picture of that stakeholder event in Birmingham as they deal with the concerns of constituents and companies, while trying to frame legislation to tackle this most urgent issue. In Europe’s experience, however, once legislation was passed and became part of the furniture, it was easier to address issues with more objectivity and greater acceptance from industry. And while lobbying did not go away, it became less intense and industries become more willing to accept compromises that seemed impossible just a few years ago.

Research undertaken by the Climate Group for the German Marshall Fund (The Effects of EU Climate Legislation on Business Competitiveness, A Survey and Analysis: Kenber, M; Haugen, O; Cobb, M; German Marshall Fund Climate & Energy Paper Series 09) surveyed nine companies who were impacted directly or indirectly by the first phase of the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS). ↩
Ellerman, A D and Joskow, P L, 2008 (The European Union’s Emissions Trading System in Perspective, Washington DC: Pew Center on Global Climate Change). ↩
To reduce emissions by 20% on 1990 by 2020, to increase energy efficiency by 20% by 2020 and to increase renewable energy to 20% by 2020. ↩

New WRI Web App Allows Easy Analysis of Developed Country Climate Pledges

Paul Mackie — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:43:46 -0500

Demonstrates that Current Pledges Fall Short

All the latest emission reduction pledges from developed countries, including recent announcements from the U.S. and Russia, are incorporated in an interactive Web application released by the World Resources Institute (WRI) here today at the U.N. climate conference.

“Understanding the levels of ambition of developed country targets, as well as how they compare with one another, is crucial. Hopefully this will help them agree to an ambitious path towards reducing their pollution,” said Rob Bradley, WRI’s international climate director.

Web users can easily test the strength and comparability of pledges - based on a variety of scenarios – by Australia, Belarus, Canada, Croatia, the European Union, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, Switzerland, Ukraine, and the United States.

A screen-shot from WRI’s new Web application: Annex I developed country absolute emission-reduction pledges in 2020 relative to 1990 levels. The red line represents these countries’ aggregated reductions based on their pledges (13-18%, if LULUCF emissions are included in baseline). The IPCC suggests that stabilizing atmospheric concentrations to 450 parts per million of CO2 will require these countries to reduce emissions 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020.

“Anyone can play online with these updated pledge numbers, choose assumptions, and compare commitments of countries. Importantly, the user can also see how far current pledges go towards addressing the urgent problem of climate change,” said Kelly Levin, a WRI associate and lead analyst on this work.

Scenarios for comparing country pledges include:

percent change in per capita reductions versus absolute reductions;
baseline years of 1990, 2000, 2005, or 2006;
high and/or low pledge ranges; and
with or without land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF) emissions in the baseline.

An accompanying report, Comparability of Annex I Emission Reduction Pledges, along with a chart comparing 2020 targets of Annex I countries, is also being released today. It details the commitments from industrialized countries that are part of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The report finds that developed country pledges total a 13 percent to 18 percent reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels by 2020, depending on the assumptions made about the details of the pledges.

This falls far short of the 25 percent to 40 percent range of emission reductions that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states would be necessary for stabilizing concentrations of carbon dioxide at 450 parts per million, a level associated with a 26 percent to 78 percent risk of overshooting a 2 degrees Celsius temperature increase.

“It is clear that we need industrialized countries to come forward with more ambitious pledges in Copenhagen if we are to avert the worst impacts of climate change,” added Jennifer Morgan, director of WRI’s Climate and Energy Program.

The numbers in the Web application, report, and chart represent pledges by countries responsible for 98 percent of all developed country greenhouse gas emissions.

The Truth About Cap-and-Trade in Europe

Jill Duggan — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:29:30 -0500

Has cap-and-trade in Europe worked? WRI’s Senior Fellow Jill Duggan, who helped implement the EU trading scheme, sorts the myths from reality.

This piece is first in a series from Visiting Senior Fellow Jill Duggan:

Europe began its cap-and-trade system in 2005, with a three year learning period (phase 1). In recent U.S. Senate climate hearings, cap-and-trade critics pointed to the challenges of that first phase as a sign that cap-and-trade was a failure. But as more results are identified and understood, Europe’s first phase is looking more and more like a success. Today Europe has a stable cap-and-trade system, improved by the lessons learned when it was first implemented, and industry in Europe have certainty that carbon pricing is here to stay.

Price Stability

Price volatility for carbon is often cited as a problem in the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS). In fact, for the second trading period, the price has been relatively stable. The chart below shows the comparative stability of European Union Allowances (EUAs) – the emissions reduction ‘currency’ (in blue) – when compared to the price volatility of other commodities such as coal, oil, and gas.

Comparing the price volatility of European Union Allowances to the volatility of oil, coal, and gas
Source: United Kingdom Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC)

Overallocation or Emissions Reductions?

Another charge leveled at the EU ETS is that officials had allocated too many allowances for polluters in the first phase, with no real abatement (greenhouse gas emissions reductions) taking place. It is true that in May 2006, the results from the first year showed that there were fewer emissions than allowances. But was this overallocation or was it, perhaps, that European states, venturing into uncharted territory, had underestimated how cheap and easy it would be for companies to reduce their emissions? The earlier UK emissions trading system, for example, exceeded its five year target in the first year. Companies, once they started to implement greenhouse gas reduction measures, were quite effective at cutting back on emissions, and needed fewer allowances than predicted.

Real Action by Companies

Critics claim that the trading system has not changed behavior. However, a look at the numbers from the Community Independent Transaction Log (CITL), which tracks allowances from the EU ETS member states, shows that in 2005, when the price of carbon was high, emissions went down. As the carbon price fell in 2006, emissions went up. In 2007, the price was so close to zero that there was hardly any carbon constraint in Europe, and there were actually 11.6 million more tonnes of CO2 emitted than allowances allocated for that year. These numbers suggest that the carbon price did in fact influence behavior – it encouraged cuts when the price was higher in the earlier years providing for extra allowances, while a lower price led to an increase in emissions.

The figures fit with early analysis undertaken by economists Ellerman and Buchner, Barry Anderson and others that found significant abatement in the EU ETS in its first years of operation, meaning that companies took real action to reduce their emissions. More research is necessary to confirm these figures, and Ellerman and others will be publishing more analysis next year. But there are strong indications that the carbon price in the first phase was very effective in driving a reduction in greenhouse gases.

The EU Carbon Market Today

So is the carbon market working today? In 2006, only 15% of the companies covered by the ETS were taking the future cost of carbon into account. Point Carbon and others found that a year later, about 65% of companies in the trading system were making their future investment decisions based on having a carbon price – and that is precisely the response needed.

Europe has stuck with cap-and-trade because of its cost-effectiveness and its ability to deliver an environmental outcome.

What are the big lessons we can draw from the early EU experience? First, a market needs scarcity in order to create demand and a carbon price. Second, achieving the right level of scarcity right away is difficult, because governments and companies are nervous and tend to overestimate how difficult and expensive it will be to cut back on emissions. Reducing emissions in practice is much easier, at least in the early years, than we had expected, and that is good news, but it makes it harder to get real demand in the market at the beginning. These early challenges do not mean that cap-and-trade is fundamentally flawed, as some have suggested. Europe has stuck with cap-and-trade because of its cost-effectiveness and its ability to deliver an environmental outcome. Companies do not need to know what the carbon price will be in 2020 (just as they do not know the price for oil or coal will in 2020). They do need to know that there will be a carbon price in 2020, and in Europe at least, they know that the ETS is here to stay.

Critics should step back and look at the overall picture of the EU ETS rather than make judgments on its various elements. In future pieces we will explore issues raised about the EU ETS, and show how many of the criticisms have thus far been misplaced and how Europe has addressed some of the early lessons.

Indicators Needed to Illustrate Benefits from Ecosystems

Jessica Forres — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:58:37 -0400

Existing data and indicators inadequately measure the important benefits people derive from the services nature provides, according to a working paper released today by the World Resources Institute (WRI).

“Indictors, such as unemployment and poverty rates, are used in nearly every sector of the economy to simplify data, identify problem areas, and inform corrective action,” said Christian Layke, an associate at WRI and author of Measuring Nature’s Benefits: A Preliminary Roadmap for Improving Ecosystem Service Indicators. “At present, ecosystem service indicators are based on those originally developed for narrower environmental and economic fields - such as climatology or forestry - leading to conspicuous knowledge and data gaps.”

The world’s ecosystems provide an array of services to people, ranging from basic needs like food and water to less tangible benefits such as pollination and erosion control. According to the working paper, most ecosystem services, especially regulating and cultural services, are being degraded at an alarming rate.

For instance, the Chesapeake Bay’s water quality and ecosystem habitats have been drastically reduced in recent years, resulting in historically low levels of the bay’s oyster and blue crab populations. This degradation has not only threatened the livelihoods of regional fisherman, but has also jeopardized the recreational services that the Bay provides to millions of Americans.

WRI’s paper highlights the knowledge gaps that exist on the contributions ecosystems make to human economic and social well-being. Without this information, policy makers are limited in their ability to integrate ecosystem services into mainstream economic planning and development policy.

The paper also finds that indictors for regulatory and cultural services, such as crop pollination or recreation, lag far behind those for “provisioning services” like crops, livestock, and freshwater. The latter are more tangible and easily perceived by the general public; some are already tracked in many countries’ national economic accounts.

The research builds on the 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), which found that an estimated 60% of the planet’s ecosystem services have been degraded. The MA highlighted the need for a robust set of ecosystem service indicators to inform decisions made in the public and private sectors. The WRI working paper represents an important step toward meeting that need.

“The next step is to develop consistent, effective indicators to help policy makers better understand the implications of their decisions on ecosystem services,” said Craig Hanson, Director of WRI’s People and Ecosystems Program. “In turn, this will inform and support policy changes to ensure that ecosystems continue to provide numerous benefits to people.”

Recommendations from WRI’s research suggest the need for a collaborative approach to developing and strengthening ecosystem service indicators, gathering data, and supporting their use by policy makers at the national level.

WRI, the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature are co-hosting an international experts meeting in Cambridge, UK September 22-23, 2009 to reflect upon current indicators and develop a collaborative framework from which to test and apply ecosystem service indicators on a global scale. The meeting will build on WRI’s research and momentum generated from other follow-up work to MA.