{"word_count": 879, "character_count": 5995}
La « gouvernance incantatoire ». L’accord de Paris et les nouvelles formes de gouvernance globale / Stefan C. Aykut, La pensée écologique, 1(1), octobre 2017 http://lapenseeecologique.com/la-gouvernance-incantatoire-laccord-de-paris-et-les-nouvelles-formes-de-gouvernance-globale/L’adoption de l’accord de Paris le 12 décembre 2015 par les 196 partis présents au centre de conférences du Bourget, puis son entrée en vigueur après avoir recueilli suffisamment de ratifications l’année suivante, ont suscité un enthousiasme qui contrastait fortement avec la série de déceptions – retrait des États-Unis du protocole de Kyoto en 2001, échec retentissant de la conférence de Copenhague en 2009 – ayant caractérisé les négociations climatiques depuis une quinzaine d’années...Turning points: trends in countries' reaching peak greenhouse gas emissions over time / Kelly Levin and David Rich. World Resources Institute, November 2017, 36 p. (working paper) http://www.wri.org/publication/turning-points-trends-countries-reaching-peak-greenhouse-gas-emissions-over-timeThis paper assesses each of the world’s countries in terms of whether their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have peaked, when they have peaked, and whether they have a commitment that implies an emissions peak in the future. The paper finds that an encouraging trend is emerging: the number of countries that have reached peak GHG emissions levels or have a commitment that implies a peak in emissions in the future grows from 19 countries in 1990 to 57 countries in 2030. The share of global emissions covered by these countries grows from 21% in 1990 to 60% in 2030. Among these 57 countries are some of the world’s biggest emitters such as China, the United States, Russia, Japan, Brazil, Germany, and Mexico. Nevertheless, the number of countries peaking and the emissions level at which they are peaking is insufficient to meet the Paris Agreement’s temperature goals to limit warming to well below 2˚C, with an effort to limit warming to 1.5˚C. The world’s ability to limit warming to 1.5-2˚C depends not only on the number of countries that have peaked over time, but also the global share of emissions represented by those countries, their emissions levels at peaking, the timing of peaking, and the rate of emissions reductions after peaking. As a result, it will be critically important for countries to make and achieve commitments to peak their emissions as soon as possible, per the Paris Agreement; to peak at lower emissions levels; and to commit to a significant rate of emissions decline after peaking.CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion 2017 / IEA. Paris : OECD, Oct. 2017, 529 p. http://www.iea.org/bookshop/757-CO2_Emissions_from_Fuel_Combustion_2017In recognition of the fundamental importance of understanding energy related environmental issues, the IEA’s CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion provides a full analysis of emissions stemming from energy use. This annual publication has become an essential tool for analysts and policy makers in many international fora such as the Conference of the Parties, which will be meeting in Bonn, Germany, from 7 to 16 November 2017.The data in this book are designed to assist in understanding the evolution of the emissions of CO2 from 1971 to 2015 for 150 countries and regions by sector and by fuel. Emissions were calculated using IEA energy databases and the default methods and emission factors from the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.Public willingness to pay for a US carbon tax and preferences for spending the revenue / Matthew J Kotchen, Zachary MTurk and Anthony A Leiserowitz, Environmental Research Letters, 12, 13 Sept. 2017 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa822aWe provide evidence from a nationally representative survey on Americans’ willingness to pay (WTP) for a carbon tax, and public preferences for how potential carbon-tax revenue should be spent. The averageWTP for a tax on fossil fuels that increases household energy bills is US$177 per year. This translates into an averageWTP of 14% more on average for households across the United States, where energy costs differ significantly across states. Regarding the tax revenues, Americans are most in support of using the money to invest in clean energy and infrastructure. There is relatively less support for reducing income or payroll taxes, returning dividends to households, and other expenditure categories. Finally, Americans support using the tax revenues to assist displaced workers in the coal industry enough to compensate each miner nearly US$146 000 upon passage of a carbon tax.Poverty eradication in a carbon constrained world / Klaus Hubacek, Giovanni Baiocchi, Kuishuang Feng &#38; Anand Patwardhan, Nature Communications, 8, article number: 912, 24 Oct. 2017, 9 p. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-00919-4The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change aims to keep warming below 2 °C while recognizing developing countries’ right to eradicate extreme poverty. Poverty eradication is also the first of the Sustainable Development Goals. This paper investigates potential consequences for climate targets of achieving poverty eradication. We find that eradicating extreme poverty, i.e., moving people to an income above $1.9 purchasing power parity (PPP) a day, does not jeopardize the climate target even in the absence of climate policies and with current technologies. On the other hand, bringing everybody to a still modest expenditure level of at least $2.97 PPP would have long-term consequences on achieving emission targets. Compared to the reference mitigation pathway, eradicating extreme poverty increases the effort by 2.8% whereas bringing everybody to at least $2.97 PPP would increase the required mitigation rate by 27%. Given that the top 10% global income earners are responsible for 36% of the current carbon footprint of households; the discourse should address income distribution and the carbon intensity of lifestyles.