{"word_count": 583, "character_count": 3915}
The Cost of Air Pollution : Strengthening the Economic Case for Action. World Bank ; Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, 2016, 122 p. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/25013The Cost of Air Pollution: Strengthening the economic case for action, a joint study of the World Bank and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), seeks to estimate the costs of premature deaths related to air pollution, to strengthen the case for action and facilitate decision making in the context of scarce resources. An estimated 5.5 million lives were lost in 2013 to diseases associated with outdoor and household air pollution, causing human suffering and reducing economic development. Those deaths cost the global economy about US$225 billion in lost labor income in 2013 and more than US$5 trillion in welfare losses, pointing toward the economic burden of air pollution.The Paris Agreement and the New Logic of International Climate Politics / Robert Falkner, International Affairs, 92(5), pp. 1107-1125 http://www.robertfalkner.orgThis article reviews and assesses the outcome of the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP-21) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), held in Paris in December 2015. It argues that the Paris Agreement breaks new ground in international climate policy, by acknowledging the primacy of domestic politics in climate change and allowing countries to set their own level of ambition for climate change mitigation. It creates a framework for making voluntary pledges that can be compared and reviewed internationally, in the hope that global ambition can be increased through a process of ‘naming and shaming’. By sidestepping distributional conflicts, the Paris Agreement manages to remove one of the biggest barriers to international climate cooperation. It recognizes that none of the major powers can be forced into drastic emissions cuts. However, instead of leaving mitigation efforts to an entirely bottom-up logic, it embeds country pledges in an international system of climate accountability and a ‘ratchet mechanism’, thus offering the chance of more durable international cooperation. At the same time, it is far from clear whether the treaty can actually deliver on the urgent need to de-carbonize the global economy. The past record of climate policies suggests that governments have a tendency to express lofty aspirations but avoid tough decisions. For the Paris Agreement to make a difference, the new logic of ‘pledge and review’ will need to mobilize international and domestic pressure and generate political momentum behind more substantial climate policies worldwide. It matters, therefore, whether the Paris Agreement’s new approach can be made to work.The Climate Cost of Free Trade: How the TPP and other trade deals undermine the Paris climate agreement / Ben Lilliston. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Sept. 2016, 36 p. http://www.iatp.org/climate-cost-of-free-tradeThe report finds that the proposed TPP, covering nearly 40 percent of the global economy, would benefit high greenhouse gas emitting industries like energy and agriculture, while restricting national and local policies that respond to climate change. National commitments to reduce GHGs, covering sectors like energy, agriculture, and forestry, are at the heart of the Paris climate agreement. All TPP participating countries have submitted a climate plan as part of the Paris deal. Yet, the IATP report found that the TPP expands the reach of past trade deals that have struck down renewable energy programs supporting green jobs, provided agribusiness more opportunities to challenge regulations that protect farmers and consumers, and limited the ability of countries to regulate dirty energy production like coal mining, fracking, and off-shore drilling. The words, “climate change” do not appear at all in the TPP agreement.