Search

The large-scale loss of ecosystem assets around the world, and the resultant reduction in the provision of nature's benefits to people, underscores the urgent need for better metrics of ecological performance as well as their integration into decision-making. Gross ecosystem product (GEP) is a measure of the aggregate monetary value of final ecosystem-related goods and services in a specific area and for a given accounting period. GEP accounting captures the use of many ecosystem services in production processes across the economy, which are then valued in terms of their benefits to society. GEP has five key elements that make it transparent, trackable, and readily understandable: (1) a focus on nature's contributions to people; (2) the measurement of ecosystem assets as stocks and ecosystem services as flows; (3) the quantification of ecosystem service use; (4) an understanding of ecosystem service supply chains through value realization; and (5) the disaggregation of benefits across groups. Correspondingly, a series of innovative policies based on GEP have been designed and implemented in China. The theoretical and practical lessons provided by these experiences can support continued policy innovation for green and inclusive development around the world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay proposes an innovative institutional strategy for global climate protection, quite distinct from but ultimately complementary to the UNFCCC climate treaty negotiations. Our 'building block' strategy relies on a variety of smaller-scale transnational cooperative arrangements, involving not only states, but also subnational jurisdictions, firms, and civil society organizations, to undertake activities whose primary goal is not climate mitigation but which will achieve greenhouse gas reductions as a byproduct. This strategy avoids the problems inherent in developing an enforceable, comprehensive treaty regime by mobilizing other incentives-including economic self-interest, energy security, cleaner air, and furtherance of international development- to motivate a range of actors to cooperate on actions that will also produce climate benefits. The strategy uses three specific models of regime formation (club, linkage, and dominant actor models) which emerge from economics, international relations, and organizational behavior, to develop a variety of transnational regimes that are generally self-enforcing and sustainable, avoiding the free rider and compliance problems endemic in collective action to provide public goods. These regimes will contribute to global climate action not only by achieving emissions reductions in the short term, but also by creating global webs of cooperation and trust, and by linking the building block regimes to the UNFCCC system through greenhouse gas monitoring and reporting systems. We argue that the building blocks regimes would thereby help secure eventual agreement on a comprehensive climate treaty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate change is more uncertain, more global, and more long-term than most issues facing humanity. This trifecta makes a policy response that encompasses scientific correctness, public awareness, economic efficiency, and governmental effectiveness particularly difficult. Economic and psychological instincts impede rational thought. Elected officials, who cater to and foster voters' misguided beliefs, compound the soft thinking that results. Beliefs must change before unequivocal symptoms appear and humanity experiences the climate-change equivalent of a life-altering heart attack. Sadly, it may well take dramatic loss to jolt the collective conscience toward serious action. In the long run, the only solution is a bottom-up demand leading to policies that appropriately price carbon and technological innovation, and that promote ethical shifts toward a world in which low-carbon, high-efficiency living is the norm. In the short term, however, popular will is unlikely to drive serious action on the issue. Policy makers can and must try to overcome inherent psychological barriers and create pockets of certainty that link benefits of climate policy to local, immediate payoffs. It will take high-level scientific and political leadership to redirect currently misguided market forces toward a positive outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Carbon dioxide emissions have accelerated since the signing of the Kyoto Protocol. This discouraging development may partly be blamed on accelerating world growth and on lags in policy instruments. However, it also raises serious question concerning whether policies to reduce CO2 emissions are as effective as generally assumed. In recent years, a considerable number of studies have identified various feedback mechanisms of climate policies that often erode, and occasionally reinforce, their effectiveness. These studies generally focus on a few feedback mechanisms at a time, without capturing the entire effect. Partial accounting of policy feedback's is common in many climate scenarios. The IPCC, for example, only accounts for direct leakage and rebound effects. This article attempts to map the aggregate effects of different types of climate policy feedback mechanisms in a cohesive framework. Controlling feedback effects is essential if the policy measures are to make any difference on a global level. A general conclusion is that aggregate policy feedback mechanisms tend to make current climate policies much less effective than is generally assumed. In fact, various policy measures involve a definite risk of 'backfiring' and actually increasing CO2 emissions. This risk is particularly pronounced once effects of climate policies on the pace of innovation in climate technology are considered. To stand any chance of controlling carbon emissions, it is imperative that feedback mechanisms are integrated into emission scenarios, targets for emission reduction and implementation of climate policy. In many cases, this will reduce the scope for subsidies to renewable energy sources, but increase the scope for other measures such as schemes to return carbon dioxide to the ground and to mitigate emissions of greenhouse gases from wetlands and oceans. A framework that incorporates policy feedback effects necessitates rethinking the design of the national and regional emission targets. This leads us to a new way of formulating emission targets that include feedback effects, the global impact target. Once the full climate policy feedback mechanisms are accounted for, there are probably only three main routes in climate policy that stand a chance of mitigating global warming: (a) returning carbon to the ground, (b) technological leaps in zero-emission energy technology that make it profitable to leave much carbon in the ground even in Annex II countries and (c) international agreements that make it more profitable to leave carbon in the ground or in forests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The rhizosphere represents one of the most complex ecosystems on earth with almost every root on the planet expected to have a chemically, physically and biologically unique rhizosphere. Despite its intrinsic complexity, understanding the rhizosphere is vital if we are to solve some of the world’s most impending environmental crises such as sustainable food, fibre and energy production, preservation of water resources and biodiversity, and mitigation against climate change. One of the key challenges that faces rhizosphere ecologists is how to translate their fundamental research into practical real-world applications. In addition, they need to convince policy makers that consideration of the rhizosphere is vital in the formulation and implementation of any environmental policy relating to plant growth. This is highlighted by the recent biofuel and carbon debt debate whereby rhizosphere processes such as priming were largely ignored leading to destabilization of national policies. Recent advances in our understanding of the tangled web of rhizosphere interactions have been largely driven by technological innovations in analytical, bioinformatic and imaging tools, and this is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. However, there is also a critical need to incorporate this more reductionist information into mathematical models that are capable of incorporating the rhizosphere to allow simulation of plot- or landscape-level processes that are particularly relevant to policymakers. Consequently, as the multidisciplinary rhizosphere science community grows, there will be increasing need to both integrate scientific information and to subsequently convey this in an effective manner to stakeholders. If we can achieve this we will be in a good position to help prevent ongoing global environmental degeneration. These issues were addressed at the RHIZOSPHERE 2 International Conference which was held at Montpellier, France in August 2007. This special issue gathers some of the research presented during this major event. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The editorial presents the proposition for global climate control measures similar to the paradigm of the United States' "Manhattan Project." The author overviews the various challenges inherent in present governmental policies regarding environmental controls and suggests a drastic, high-intensity research project to produce a distinct technological solution to the problem of the fuel-energy crisis rather than allowing the slower systems of gradual economic regulation to continue unsuccessfully.

Models of economic mechanisms for ensuring security under technogenic and natural catastrophes are designed. Methods of analysis of these models with regard for the activities of decision makers are described. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Explores how to design public policy mechanisms to stimulate rather than impede pollution-preventing technological innovation. Role of the government in technological innovation for a minimal waste society; Design criteria for policy for `green' technological innovation; Assessment of the United States environmental policy as a stimulus for `green' innovation.

The article focuses on the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that focuses on impacts of climate change and mentions that the report suggests for policy and technological changes for the stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations. It mentions that climate experts and policy analysts find the report disappointing and presents views of several climate and climate-policy experts including Glen Peters, Steve Rayner and Robert Stavins.