Search

Abstract: Local authorities are important actors to mitigate climate change. They can implement policies which can reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in sectors like transport, waste, agriculture and land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF). They can also implement policies which can increase carbon dioxide removals. The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) is one of the most important initiatives to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the EU. It is a cap and trade scheme encompassing almost half of the European-wide carbon dioxide emissions. However, carbon dioxide removals and sectors associated with local authorities’ responsibilities are not included in the EU ETS. The main objective of this paper is to propose an original cap and trade system, called LETS, designed to involve local authorities. The LETS was then tested and applied to all the local authorities in the mainland of Portugal covering emissions and removals of a single greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide) in the LULUCF and the transport sectors. The system proved to have the necessary conditions to be implemented and adaptable to other country contexts. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Agricultural activities and associated land use change are a major contributor to global anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, making climate change mitigation in the agricultural sector all the more critical. However, farmers' willingness to adopt GHG abatement depends, to a large extent, on the financial implications of new practices. Climate change mitigation is unlikely to be adopted without external (financial, socio-cultural, or other) incentives. The research presented in this paper considers farmers' preferences for financing climate change mitigation practices through public crowdfunding. As a first study of its kind, we investigate farmers' attitudes towards climate change mitigation, knowledge of crowdfunding as a fundraising method, and interest in using public crowdfunding campaigns to finance on-farm mitigation practices. Based on a choice experiment survey with 443 Norwegian farmers, we show that knowledge about crowdfunding as an alternative finance method is generally low. Respondents who are interested in using crowdfunding prefer donation- or reward-based crowdfunding models that cover the full cost of mitigation over a loan-based model or campaigns that only fund a proportion of the costs. A financially secure farming business, previous exposure to crowdfunding, and a strong sense of responsibility to abate climate change are associated with higher farmers' interest in using crowdfunding. We find that farmers in Norway are hesitant to be publicly presented as recipients of crowdfunding, which suggests that crowdfunding is best set up as joint campaigns (e.g. with other farmers) that are run by intermediary organisations (rather than by individual farmers). Our findings highlight that, while opportunities to use crowdfunding as a fundraising method for agricultural climate change may be limited, properly designed campaigns can provide an effective instrument to engage certain groups of farmers in on-farm climate change mitigation. • Crowdfunding can be used to raise funds for agricultural climate change mitigation. • There is currently no research on farmers' interest in crowdfunding. • We conduct a choice experiment survey of Norwegian farmers. • About 25% of farmers would be interested in crowdfunding to finance mitigation measures. • Donation- or reward-based models, and campaigns that collaborate with other farmers are preferred. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agriculture, forestry and other land use are important components of a global strategy to limit climate change. Using the example of EU agriculture, this paper examines the potential contribution of technological (i.e. technical and management-based) greenhouse gas mitigation options to climate targets. The quantitative framework presented allows to analyze disparities between marginal abatement cost curves (MACCs) derived from two different commonly used approaches, and between aggregated and regional MACCs. Results highlight the importance of assessing mitigation of agricultural emissions from a multi-dimensional perspective, considering regional heterogeneity of biophysical and economic circumstances and comprising both carbon-dioxide (CO 2) and non-CO 2 emissions. Regarding the ranking of technologies in terms of mitigation potential and costs, the results underline the need to consider technologies in a combined manner, avoiding the simple aggregation of mitigation potentials by individual measures without taking their interactions into account. Focusing only on standalone MACCs can lead to an overestimation of the mitigation potential. Conversely, measures classified as relatively high cost in standalone and aggregated MACCs should not be discarded, as they can still be cost-effective in some regions. The analysis shows that there is no 'one size fits all' rule that could be followed for identifying technologies that should be implemented in all regions. From a policy perspective the results imply that farmers should be granted some flexibility to adopt a set of cost-effective mitigation options that best fits their circumstances. • This paper explores disparities between technology-specific MACCs in agriculture. • Mitigation technologies need to be considered in a combined and regional manner. • Interactions between measures affect cost-effectiveness of individual technologies. • Standalone approaches may discard options that are cost-effective for some regions. • Region-specific flexibility is required to find the most cost-effective technology mix. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]