Search

The study assesses the extent to which public health is integrated into European national and urban climate change adaptation policy and planning. We analyse national adaptation documents from the 27 European Union member states and interview city-level experts (n = 17) on the integration of three categories of adaptation efforts: general efforts to minimize health impacts related to climate change, targeted efforts to enhance resilience in health systems, and supportive efforts to foster the potential of the first two categories. At a national level, general efforts to address vector-borne diseases and heat-related illness are covered comprehensively, whereas efforts addressing several climate-related health risks are neglected (e.g. water-borne diseases, injuries from extreme weather and cardiopulmonary health) or overlooked (e.g. malnutrition and mental health). Targeted efforts to inform policy decisions, such as carrying out research, risk monitoring and assessments, are often described in detail, but efforts to manage day-to-day health care delivery and emergency situations receive little attention. At the urban level, health issues receive less attention in climate adaptation policy and planning. If health topics are included, they are often described as indirect benefits of adaptation efforts in other sectors and not perceived as the priority of the involved authorities. This effectively means that general and targeted efforts are the responsibility of other sectoral departments, while supportive efforts are the responsibility of the national government or external organizations. As a result, at an urban level, climate-related health system adaptation is not a policy aim in its own right, and many potentially high health risks are being ignored. In order for health risks to be better integrated into adaptation policy and planning, it is critical to interconnect national and urban levels, reduce sectoral thinking and welcome external expertize and facilitate large-scale data collection and sharing of health and climate indicators. We recommend focussing on cooperatively drafting strategies for integrating health issues into climate policy and planning with stakeholders at the national and urban levels, in different policy sectors and in society. Policy planners can build on the strengths of adaptation documents from other countries or cities and take note of any weaknesses. We advocate to foster co-benefits for health and climate action of various adaptation measures (e.g. by promoting active mobility and urban greenery, health impacts related to heat, (mental and physical) stress and air pollution are reduced). Large-scale data collection and sharing of health and climate indicators should be facilitated to support learning and pro-active decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper aims to identify and analyse potential legal avenues for phasing out fossil fuel subsidies (FFS) in the European Union (EU) using State aid rules. Our analysis reveals that the EU State aid rules would allow the European Commission to effectively target and monitor a vast number of FFS. From a policy perspective, the requirements for notification, examination, transparency, reporting, and recovery of unlawfully granted aid are of particular importance. The legal framework also provides avenues for the EU Commission to start a 'Fossil Fuel Inquiry', while providing important tools for civil society to apply pressure on states for the removal of FFS. Based on our legal analysis and pertinent literature, we discuss which of these different FFS and corresponding estimates are likely (or not) to fall under the EU State aid rules. Despite inherent uncertainties, the EU State aid toolbox offers various possibilities to the EU to actively advance its climate change policy and comply with its international commitments to reduce FFS. Key policy insights Member States in the EU still subsidize both the consumption and production of fossil fuels by a myriad of different measures, despite pledges to reduce FFS as part of the EU's ambitious climate policy. A major part of these fossil fuels subsidies could be addressed by the already existing EU State aid rules, which provide an effective system that is not dependent on Member States political will and has a powerful enforcement mechanism. A first key step would be for the EU Commission to start a 'Fossil Fuel Inquiry', which would identify and quantify all support for fossil fuels within Member States. The EU State aid rules could also provide civil society with the possibility to actively lobby for State aid control, while offering the court systems in Member States as an additional avenue for enforcement.With this in mind, the EU State Aid rules could be used effectively to help the EU to phase out a major part of FFS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding the drivers of CO2 emissions changes is useful in supporting future mitigation. This study applies a log-mean divisia index decomposition to assess four drivers of CO2 emissions changes – population, income, energy intensity and carbon intensity – in 138 countries worldwide over the period 2000–2017. At the global level, income and population are the main drivers of increased emissions over time, with contributions of 116% and 60% to global CO2 emissions changes, respectively. Energy intensity is the key mitigation driver, with a contribution of −80%. Although carbon intensity increased CO2 emissions overall over the period 2000–2017 with a contribution of 4%, it has started to reduce emissions in recent years. China, the United States of America, the European Union, India and Russia are the five regions responsible for most changes in global emissions. The five regions together contribute −73% of the energy intensity effect, and China's income contribution is 83% in relation to the total of 116%. At the national level, in 2017, CO2 emissions returned to below 2000 levels in 62% of Annex I (developed) countries but increased in 88% of non-Annex I (mostly developing) countries. Among the 35 countries realizing CO2 emissions reductions, 24 were driven primarily by energy intensity, six by carbon intensity, three by economic recession, and one by population decrease. Among the 103 countries with increasing CO2 emissions, 63 were driven primarily by income, 26 by population, nine by carbon intensity increase, and five by energy intensity increase. Our analysis emphasizes the necessity of considering differences in national development stages when formulating climate change mitigation policies. Key policy insights Over the period 2000–2017, at the global and national levels, CO2 emissions increases were driven mainly by economic development and population growth, and mitigation was driven mainly by energy intensity improvement. Improving energy intensity and carbon intensity is the key to mitigating CO2 emissions. Carbon intensity is expected to play an increasing role in the future. In over one-third of Annex I countries, CO2 emissions increased from 2000 to 2017. To meet the Paris Agreement goals, Annex I countries will need to enhance mitigation ambition by further tapping the mitigation potentials of energy and carbon intensity. In accordance with national circumstances, development needs and international support, non-Annex I countries should achieve low-carbon economic and energy transitions and peak CO2 emissions as early as possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Union (EU), the US and Australia have each adopted, or are considering, free allocations to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries (EITEIs) in order to minimize emissions leakage and industrial offshoring resulting from climate policy. Differences in the design of these schemes, including how a country defines eligible EITEIs, the scale of allocation and the method of distribution, all have the potential to affect the outcomes of the programmes. In crafting their EITEI allocation formulas, policymakers in each country must balance three important priorities - the economic efficiency of the cap and trade programme, an equitable distribution of the programme's allowances and the effectiveness of the allocations in addressing leakage and competitiveness concerns. These three priorities provide a useful framework for considering the tradeoffs inherent in designing allocation schemes for EITEIs. Through this lens, policy approaches taken by the EU, US and Australia are evaluated with respect to four important questions of allocation policy design: the definition of EITEIs, the costs to be covered, the methodology for distributing allowances and the duration of free allocation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]