{"word_count": 731, "character_count": 5188}
A Mitigation-Based Rationale for Incorporating a Climate Change Impacts Fee into the Federal Coal Leasing Program / Michael Burger. Columbia Law School. Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Sept. 2016, 54 p. https://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/climate-change/burger_09-2016_climate_change_impacts_fee.pdfThe paper makes several key points about the rationale for introducing such a fee, most notably, that the federal government has a duty to mitigate climate impacts from the federal coal leasing program, and that the Department of Interior (“Interior”) and the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) have ample authority to impose a climate change impacts fee on coal leases as a form of compensatory mitigation for those coal leases. The paper also discusses technical issues that should be considered when assessing the effectiveness of this mitigation option, such as what metrics should be used to establish an appropriate fee and how a fee might work with carbon sequestration efforts and other emissions offsets.Carbon Market Stabilisation Measures: Implications for Linking / Fitsum G. Tiche, Stefan E. Weishaar, and Oscar Couwenberg. MIT CEEPR, August 2016, 25 p. http://ceepr.mit.edu/files/papers/2016-011.pdfThe persistently low allowance prices in the EU emissions trading scheme (EU ETS) – oscillating between €5/tCO2 and €17/tCO2 since 2008/9 – has reignited debates about the dynamic efficiency of cap-and-trade schemes. Within the context of the EU ETS, the debate has largely focused on the causes of the price slump, policy options to address the problem in the short- and long-run, and the efficiency, environmental effectiveness, and political feasibility of the various options. Despite the potentially significant risk that linking of emissions trading systems poses to market stability by facilitating contagion of localised price shocks and consequently eroding political support for domestic ETSs, studies analysing the linking implications of the proposed market stabilisation measures are largely absent. This paper fills that gap.Key indicators for tracking 2030 strategies towards decarbonisation in the EU: which indicators, why and what process for using them? / Oliver Sartor, Working Papers N°08/2016. Iddri, September 2016. 30 p. http://www.iddri.org/Publications/Key-indicators-for-tracking-2030-strategies-towards-decarbonisation-in-the-EU-which-indicators,why-and-what-process-for-using-tLa décarbonation des économies nécessite au niveau national des transformations structurelles significatives des systèmes énergétiques et des secteurs intensifs en émissions. Dans ce contexte, les politiques mises en œuvre doivent définir un ensemble cohérent et complet d'objectifs correspondant à chaque aspect de la transition et suivre les progrès dans l'atteinte des objectifs à l'aide d'indicateurs. Mais quels objectifs et indicateurs privilégier ? Et comment s'assurer de la pertinence de ces choix pour mener à bien la stratégie de décarbonation ? Ce Working Paper apporte des éléments de réponse à ces questions à l'échelle de l'Union européenne, dont les États membres se sont accordés sur un ensemble « d'indicateurs clés » dans le cadre de l'Union de l'énergie.From Paris to the End of Oil / Dag Harald Claes and Helge Hveem, Department of Political Science, University of Oslo, Politics and Governance, Vol. 4, n° 3, pp. 197-208 http://www.cogitatiopress.com/ojs/index.php/politicsandgovernance/article/download/651/651This article discusses the possibilities and obstacles for a cost-effective implementation of policies that will lead to a significant reduction in global CO2 emissions from the use of oil. The structural conditions and economic consequences of changing national or regional energy systems vary dramatically. In addition, there are a large number of actors with strong interests along the energy value chain that may potentially halt, delay or alter the implementation of the Paris treaty. We analyze these issues by first locating oil in the overall energy system, then identifying possibilities and obstacles at various stages of the oil value chain, and finally by contextualizing global oil by discussing whether and how it may be affected by geopolitics and regional conflict. In brief, our argument is that developments in consumption volumes and patterns will be most important. Market forces are vital, but they are influenced by politics and public policy outcomes. Transportation is the most important sector for oil consumption, with changes in transport behavior, modes and technology being vital drivers. The behavior of investors will be a decisive factor in shaping the production side of the oil system. If investments go down as a response to lasting low oil prices and/or because investors decide to turn to green economy options, the supply of oil will logically shrink. On the other hand, the growth and development aspirations of a rapidly growing population in developing countries are likely to stimulate demand and thus increase exploration, production and subsequently the price. Finally, we emphasize the importance of (geo)politics influencing all aspects of the value chain of oil.