Economy advantage
Download 0.93 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Mitigation is necessary for US response
- Climate Adaptation hurts mitigation efforts and creates CO2
- Impacts
- Roads and infrastructure threaten ecosystems
Mitigation Trade-OffAdaptation and mitigation tradeoff—competing policy optionsIPPC 7 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Mitigation and adaptation- synergies and trade-offs”, http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch11s11-9.html) At the national level, mitigation and adaptation are often cast as competing priorities for policy makers (Cohen et al., 1998; Michaelowa, 2001). In other words, interest groups will fight about the limited funds available in a country for addressing climate change, providing analyses of how countries might then make optimal decisions about the appropriate adaptation-mitigation ‘mix’. Using a public choice model, Michaelowa (2001) finds that mitigation will be preferred by societies with a strong climate protection industry and low mitigation costs. Public pressure for adaptation will depend on the occurrence of extreme weather events. As technical adaptation measures will lead to benefits for closely-knit, clearly defined groups who can organize themselves well in the political process, these will benefit from subsidy-financed programmes. Changes in society will become less attractive as benefits are spread more widely. Mitigation is necessary for US responseIPPC 7 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Mitigation and adaptation- synergies and trade-offs”, http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch2s2-5.html) IPCC (2001), Chapter 1 initiated a very preliminary discussion about the concept of mitigative capacity. Mitigative capacity (in this context) is seen as a critical component of a country’s ability to respond to the mitigation challenge, and the capacity, as in the case of adaptation, largely reflects man-made and natural capital and institutions. It is concluded that development, equity and sustainability objectives, as well as past and future development trajectories, play critical roles in determining the capacity for specific mitigation options. Following that, it can be expected that policies designed to pursue development, equity and/or sustainability objectives might be very benign framework conditions for implementing cost-effective climate change mitigation policies. The final conclusion is that, due to the inherent uncertainties involved in climate change policies, enhancing mitigative capacity can be a policy objective in itself.¶ It is important to recognize here that the institutional aspects of the adaptive and mitigative capacities refer to a number of elements that have a ‘public-good character’ as well as general social resources. These elements will be common framework conditions for implementing a broad range of policies, including climate change and more general development issues. This means that the basis for a nation’s policy-implementing capacity exhibits many similarities across different sectors, and that capacity-enhancing efforts in this area will have many joint benefits.¶ There may be major differences in the character of the adaptive and mitigative capacity in relation to sectoral focus and to the range of technical options and policy instruments that apply to adaptation and mitigation respectively. Furthermore, assessing the efficiency and implementability of specific policy options depends on local institutions, including markets and human and social capital, where it can be expected that some main strengths and weaknesses will be similar for different sectors of an economy. Climate Adaptation hurts mitigation efforts and creates CO2IPPC 7 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Mitigation and adaptation- synergies and trade-offs”, http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch2s2-5.html) There are a number of ways in which adaptation and mitigation are related at different levels of decision-making. Mitigation efforts can foster adaptive capacity if they eliminate market failures and distortions, as well as perverse subsidies that prevent actors from making decisions on the basis of the true social costs of the available options. At a highly aggregated scale, mitigation expenditures appear to divert social or private resources and reduce the funds available for adaptation, but in reality the actors and budgets involved are different. Both options change relative prices, which can lead to slight adjustments in consumption and investment patterns and thus to changes in the affected economy’s development pathway, but direct trade-offs are rare. The implications of adaptation can be both positive and negative for mitigation. For example, afforestation that is part of a regional adaptation strategy also makes a positive contribution to mitigation. In contrast, adaptation actions that require increased energy use from carbon-emitting sources (e.g., indoor cooling) would affect mitigation efforts negatively. ImpactsSmall vehicles omit a lot of emissionDeCicco and Fung, Environmental Defense, 6 (John DeCicco and Freda Fung, Environmental Defense, “Global Warming On The Road The Climate Impact Of America’s Automobiles”, 2006, http://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/5301_Globalwarmingontheroad_0.pdf) Perhaps surprisingly, small cars (compacts, subcompacts and two-seaters)¶ were responsible for the most carbon¶ emissions, amounting to 77 MMTc.¶ Small cars once had been the dominant¶ segment by sales; given the longevity of¶ vehicles, many of them remain on the¶ road today. Thus, despite their higher¶ than average fuel economy, small cars¶ still accounted for the largest share of¶ rolling carbon emissions as of 2004.¶ This situation illustrates the relative¶ durability of automobiles: In terms of¶ usage, the U.S. light vehicle stock now¶ has a “half-life” of roughly eight years;¶ in other words, 50% of vehicles are¶ replaced within that time. It takes¶ 16 years for the fleet to be 90% replaced¶ in terms of the carbon emitted during¶ driving. In short, the choices made¶ regarding new vehicles influence emissions for many years to come.¶ SUVs represent the second largest¶ portion of rolling carbon. They soon¶ will be the main source of automotive¶ CO2 emissions, having overtaken small¶ cars in terms of market share in 2002.¶ Their impact will be all the greater due¶ to their lower than average fuel economy.¶ As of 2004, all the SUVs on the road in¶ the United States emitted 67 MMTc,¶ an amount equivalent to the CO2¶ spewed by 55 large coal-fired power¶ plants. Next were pickup trucks, which¶ collectively emitted 60 MMTc in 2004. Roads and infrastructure threaten ecosystemsMeyer et. al. 09, (Michael Frederick R. Dickerson Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, PhD Michael Flood Senior Planner at Parsons Brinckerhoff ¶ Chris Dorney Transportation/Land Use Planner at Parsons Brinckerhoff ¶ Ken Leonard Principal of Cambridge Systematics, ¶ Robert Hyman Associate at Cambride Systematics ¶ Joel Smith expert on climate change policy, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2001 and 2007 assessment report; the latter shared the Noble Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore. Vice-President of Stratus Consulting, Boulder, CO. “Climate Change and the Highway System: Impacts and Adaptation Approaches”. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. 5/6/2009 http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP20-83%2805%29_Task2-3SynthesisReport.pdf) Coastal Ecosystems: As sea levels rise, coastal ecosystems will migrate inland. Coastal ¶ highways can serve as a barrier to this migration, especially where the road is armored ¶ against rising sea levels. As a result, coastal ecosystems will be squeezed between retreating ¶ shores and immobile highway right-of-ways, in some cases eventually disappearing. (Some ¶ states, such as Massachusetts and Rhode Island, prohibit shoreline armoring along the ¶ shores of some estuaries so that ecosystems can migrate inland, and several states limit ¶ armoring along ocean shores). ¶ x Runoff: Changes in precipitation patterns will affect the magnitude and ecological impact of ¶ storm water runoff. More intense precipitation events in areas of high impervious cover ¶ could result in runoff spikes that can cause increased erosion in streambeds and, in warm ¶ weather, thermal shock to water bodies from the sudden infusion of pavement-heated ¶ runoff. It may also result in pollutant loading spikes, particularly if rainfall events become ¶ less frequent. On the other hand, decreased use of snow and ice chemicals in wintertime will ¶ reduce the harmful effects of these chemicals on water bodies. ¶ x Wildlife Movement: Roads can act as barriers to wildlife movement and migration, either by ¶ preventing movement (e.g., walls and fences) or by increasing the risk of injury and ¶ mortality while crossing roadways. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 0.93 Mb. Share with your friends:
|