Time filter

Source Type

Fenton A.,University of Leeds | Fenton A.,Center for Climate Change Economics and Policy | Gallagher D.,Adaptation Fund Board secretariat | Wright H.,International Center for Climate Change and Development | And 4 more authors.
Climate and Development | Year: 2014

While most adaptation actions occur at the local level, there is an absence of commitment at the international level to channel adaptation finance to local communities. Without such a commitment, there is a risk that climate finance will continue to support top-down, centralized activities that may struggle to address the needs of vulnerable communities. This paper explores ways in which community-based adaptation is presently being mainstreamed through the multilateral funds that are used to channel adaptation finance under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change process, and points to two promising examples that demonstrate this. The first is the Small Grants Programme of the Global Environmental Facility, an established modality through which community organizations can access finance to manage their adaptation needs. The second is the direct access modality of the Adaptation Fund, which devolves decision-making power from multilateral agencies towards the national and local levels. At the country level, experiences from Nepal demonstrate an institutional environment that helps to prioritize the adaptation needs of the most vulnerable. Nepal achieves this by mandating that at least 80% of available finance flows to the community level, and that the implementation of projects is conducted in a bottom-up and inclusive process. © 2014, © 2014 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis.


Smith L.A.,Center for the Analysis of Time Series | Smith L.A.,Center for Climate Change Economics and Policy | Smith L.A.,Pembroke College | Stern N.,Center for Climate Change Economics and Policy
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences | Year: 2011

Policy-making is usually about risk management. Thus, the handling of uncertainty in science is central to its support of sound policy-making. There is value in scientists engaging in a deep conversation with policy-makers and others, not merely 'delivering' results or analyses and then playing no further role. Communicating the policy relevance of different varieties of uncertainty, including imprecision, ambiguity, intractability and indeterminism, is an important part of this conversation. Uncertainty is handled better when scientists engage with policy-makers. Climate policy aims both to alter future risks (particularly via mitigation) and to take account of and respond to relevant remaining risks (via adaptation) in the complex causal chain that begins and ends with individuals. Policy-making profits from learning how to shift the distribution of risks towards less dangerous impacts, even if the probability of events remains uncertain. Immediate value lies not only in communicating how risks may change with time and how those risks may be changed by action, but also in projecting how our understanding of those risks may improve with time (via science) and how our ability to influence them may advance (via technology and policy design). Guidance on the most urgent places to gather information and realistic estimates of when to expect more informative answers is of immediate value, as are plausible estimates of the risk of delaying action. Risk assessment requires grappling with probability and ambiguity (uncertainty in the Knightian sense) and assessing the ethical, logical, philosophical and economic underpinnings of whether a target of '50 per cent chance of remaining under +2°C' is either 'right' or 'safe'. How do we better stimulate advances in the difficult analytical and philosophical questions while maintaining foundational scientific work advancing our understanding of the phenomena? And provide immediate help with decisions that must be made now? This journal is © 2011 The Royal Society.


Rendon Thompson O.R.,Center for Climate Change Economics and Policy | Rendon Thompson O.R.,University of Leeds | Paavola J.,Center for Climate Change Economics and Policy | Paavola J.,University of Leeds | And 4 more authors.
Ecology and Society | Year: 2013

Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) has received strong support as a major component of future global climate change policy. The financial mechanism of REDD+ is payment for the ecosystem service of carbon sequestration in tropical forests that is expected to create incentives for conservation of forest cover and condition. However, the costs of achieving emissions reduction by these means remain largely unknown. We assess the set-up, implementation, and monitoring costs, i.e., collectively the transaction costs, of six of the first seven REDD+ project designs from the Peruvian Amazon and compare them with established projects in Brazil and Bolivia. The estimated costs vary greatly among the assessed projects from US$0.16 to 1.44 ha-1 yr-1, with an average of US$0.73 ha-1 yr-1, though they are comparable to earlier published estimates. The results indicate that the costs of implementing REDD+ are highly uncertain for participating developing countries because of issues such as inadequate project design and how additionality is determined. Furthermore, some insight is obtained into how different activities to reduce deforestation and forest degradation, the type of implementer, and project location affect implementation costs of REDD+ projects. Even with these first estimates, the cost of preserving existing intact forests in the Peruvian Amazon may have been underestimated. © 2013 by the author(s).


Sudmant A.,University of Leeds | Sudmant A.,Center for Climate Change Economics and Policy | Millward-Hopkins J.,University of Leeds | Millward-Hopkins J.,Center for Climate Change Economics and Policy | And 3 more authors.
Climatic Change | Year: 2016

Research has begun to uncover the extent that greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed to cities, as well as the scope for cities to contribute to emissions reduction. But assessments of the economics of urban climate mitigation are lacking, and are currently based on selective case studies or specific sectors. Further analysis is crucial to enable action at the urban level. Here we consider the investment needs associated with 11 clusters of low carbon measures that could be deployed across the world’s urban areas in a way that is consistent with a broader 2°C target. Economic assessment of these low carbon measures finds that they could be deployed around the world with investments of c$1 trillion per year between 2015 and 2050 (equivalent to 1.3% of global GDP in 2014). When the direct savings that emerge from these measures due to avoided energy costs are considered, under the central scenario these investments have a net present value of c$16.6 trillion USD in the period to 2050. However, discount rates, energy prices and rates of technological learning are key to the economic feasibility of climate action, with the NPV of these measures ranging from -$1.1 trillion USD to $65.2 trillion USD under different conditions. © 2016 The Author(s)


Doda B.,Center for Climate Change Economics and Policy | Gennaioli C.,Center for Climate Change Economics and Policy | Gouldson A.,University of Bristol | Grover D.,Center for Climate Change Economics and Policy | Sullivan R.,University of Leeds
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management | Year: 2016

This paper is the first large scale, quantitative study of the impact of corporate carbon management practices on corporate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Using data for 2009 and 2010 from the Carbon Disclosure Project survey, we find little compelling evidence that commonly adopted management practices are reducing emissions. This finding is unexpected and we propose three possible explanations for it. First, it may be because corporate carbon data and management practice information have not been reported in a standardized way. Second, there may be a delay between the application of corporate carbon management practices and their impact on emissions performance. Third, carbon management practices are not sufficiently impact-oriented, meaning there is no relationship to observe. Our findings are important for policymakers designing corporate GHG reporting standards, for the multiple stakeholders trying to understand the drivers of corporate carbon performance, and for the corporate managers responsible for measuring, reporting and mitigating emissions. Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management published by ERP Environment and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. © 2015 The Authors. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management published by ERP Environment and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.


Papargyropoulou E.,Malaysia Japan International Institute of Technology | Colenbrander S.,University of Leeds | Colenbrander S.,Center for Climate Change Economics and Policy | Sudmant A.H.,University of Leeds | And 4 more authors.
Journal of Environmental Management | Year: 2015

The provision of appropriate waste management is not only an indicator of development but also of broader sustainability. This is particularly relevant to expanding cities in developing countries faced with rising waste generation and associated environmental health problems. Despite these urgent issues, city authorities often lack the evidence required to make well-informed decisions. This study evaluates the carbon and economic performance of low-carbon measures in the waste sector at a city level, within the context of a developing country. Palembang in Indonesia is used as a case of a medium-sized city in a newly industrialized country, with relevance to other similar cities in the developing world. Evidence suggests that the waste sector can achieve substantial carbon emission reductions, and become a carbon sink, in a cost effective way. Hence there is an economic case for a low carbon development path for Palembang, and possibly for other cities in developing and developed countries facing similar challenges. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd.

Loading Center for Climate Change Economics and Policy collaborators
Loading Center for Climate Change Economics and Policy collaborators