Search

This article aims at reconstructing the history - since its inception until today - of climate change policy and legislation developed at a central/federal level in the European Union and the United States. The comparative-historical approach shows how the EU and US domestic climate change policy and law are intertwined with the development of the international climate change regime and how their actions as well as their omissions are strongly affecting the international arena. Despite the EU and US are now only two of the many actors seating at a global negotiation table they are still able to continue shaping the framework of this paramount debate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ways in which climate adaptation is understood in the European Union is examined via three key policy documents: the Strategy on adaptation and the Green and White Papers that preceded it. Drawing on Poststructuralist Discourse Theory, light is shed on the implicit values and assumptions that underpin this recent policy initiative. The findings demonstrate a tension between the declared ambition to act on adaptation and implicit suggestions that nothing really has to change, and the challenge can be addressed by market and technological innovations, and by mainstreaming adaptation into existing sectoral policies. The policy discourse effectively serves to depoliticize choices societies make in response to climate change, presenting adaptation as a non-political issue. Insight into European adaptation discourse enables deeper understanding of recent policy developments and opens up possible entry points for critique. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper suggests how the regulation of Solar Radiation Management (SRM) field research in Europe could be designed to maximise the possibility of securing legitimacy. It argues that legitimacy is maximised when regulatory frameworks are legal, and also responsive, flexible, deliberative and inclusive. By adopting an 'incorporated' approach to assessing the risk of Solar Radiation Management (SRM) field research, the EU can import elements of 'directly deliberative polyarchy' into its otherwise orthodox constitutional regulatory approach thereby maximising legitimacy. The argument is new in so far as it juxtaposes two conceptions of procedural legitimacy - one institutional and the other functional - in the context of significant scientific uncertainty in the technocratic regulatory paradigm of the EU. The significance of the work is that it draws on these conceptions of legitimacy to advance a pragmatic model of institutional design which comprises procedures that maximise legitimacy with minimal disruption to the EU's institutional balance of powers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate engineering in general and solar radiationmanagement (SRM) in particular raise profound and complex political, legal, social, and ethical questions that go well beyond technicalfeasibility issues. We consider three such questions. First, can existing EU decision-making processes accommodate sufficient public engagement to ensure legitimate decisions on SRM? Second, does politics influence the choice of legislative procedure for SRM regulation? Third, does the choice of legislative procedure influence the likelihood of SRMimplementation? Three main conclusions emerge from our analysis. First, existing EU decision-making processes can - given certain conditions - accommodate considerable public engagement and hence ensure legitimate decisions on SRM. Second, politics matters; indeed, the EU's choice of legislative procedure concerning SRM may well become subject to political negotiations. Finally, the choice of legislative procedure may substantially influence the likelihood of SRM implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the prospects for the European Union (EU) to develop a coherent policy regarding climate engineering (CE). It discusses significant legal parameters derived from EU law from which such a future EU policy would have to arise. . It is opined that climate engineering carries risks unlike any of the previous policy responses to climate change.