Pub Date : 2023-06-23DOI: 10.1163/18786561-bja10038
Felicity Deane, Callum Brockett
For the past two decades scholars and policymakers have argued that carbon border adjustments (cbas) may remove the risk of carbon leakage. This article examines two of the legal and moral issues relevant to cbas to better understand how cbas may be implemented to support climate change mitigation goals. World Trade Organization compliance represents a conundrum for policymakers. Although a cba may prove meaningful for greenhouse gas emission reduction, it could also lead to trade tensions if viewed as a disguised restriction on international trade. The impact of cbas on Global South nations also presents a concern in terms of fairness and climate justice. In this respect, in addition to undesirable economic impacts, it is increasingly accepted that support must be provided to least-developed countries in order to achieve global net-zero emission targets. cbas do not necessarily provide this. Ultimately, there are pathways forward to ensure that trade tensions are minimized and fairness and equity are achieved in implementing cbas. As action on climate change mitigation is urgent, this pathway forward must be carefully but rapidly navigated.
{"title":"Carbon Border Adjustments: A Legal Tool for Mitigation or a Barrier to Justice?","authors":"Felicity Deane, Callum Brockett","doi":"10.1163/18786561-bja10038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18786561-bja10038","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000For the past two decades scholars and policymakers have argued that carbon border adjustments (cbas) may remove the risk of carbon leakage. This article examines two of the legal and moral issues relevant to cbas to better understand how cbas may be implemented to support climate change mitigation goals. World Trade Organization compliance represents a conundrum for policymakers. Although a cba may prove meaningful for greenhouse gas emission reduction, it could also lead to trade tensions if viewed as a disguised restriction on international trade. The impact of cbas on Global South nations also presents a concern in terms of fairness and climate justice. In this respect, in addition to undesirable economic impacts, it is increasingly accepted that support must be provided to least-developed countries in order to achieve global net-zero emission targets. cbas do not necessarily provide this. Ultimately, there are pathways forward to ensure that trade tensions are minimized and fairness and equity are achieved in implementing cbas. As action on climate change mitigation is urgent, this pathway forward must be carefully but rapidly navigated.","PeriodicalId":38485,"journal":{"name":"Climate Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46962222","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-26DOI: 10.1163/18786561-12030001
T. Popa, A. Kallies, Vanessa Johnston, Gabriella Belfrage-Maher
Over the past two decades a global jurisprudential trend of domestic climate litigation against governments and companies has emerged. One avenue for litigation against these entities is tort law. The tort of negligence could provide access to compensation for aggrieved individuals and groups. Using the example of Australia, this article discusses whether the emergence of climate tort cases, an increasing drive to hold corporations responsible for climate change, and a company focus on voluntary climate action, could lead to the emergence of a new duty of care by corporate actors toward non-shareholders. We highlight opportunities and barriers to the further development of negligence law as a cause of action against corporations for harms related to climate change.
{"title":"Do Emerging Trends in Climate Litigation Signal a Potential Cause of Action in Negligence against Corporations by the Australian Public?","authors":"T. Popa, A. Kallies, Vanessa Johnston, Gabriella Belfrage-Maher","doi":"10.1163/18786561-12030001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18786561-12030001","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Over the past two decades a global jurisprudential trend of domestic climate litigation against governments and companies has emerged. One avenue for litigation against these entities is tort law. The tort of negligence could provide access to compensation for aggrieved individuals and groups. Using the example of Australia, this article discusses whether the emergence of climate tort cases, an increasing drive to hold corporations responsible for climate change, and a company focus on voluntary climate action, could lead to the emergence of a new duty of care by corporate actors toward non-shareholders. We highlight opportunities and barriers to the further development of negligence law as a cause of action against corporations for harms related to climate change.","PeriodicalId":38485,"journal":{"name":"Climate Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49400238","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-26DOI: 10.1163/18786561-12030004
Hana Müllerová, A. Ač
In June 2022, a Czech climate lawsuit, Klimatická žaloba ČR, z. s. and Others v. Government of the Czech Republic and Others was decided by a first-instance court. The litigation was led against the Czech state for insufficient climate mitigation and adaptation effort. The Municipal Court in Prague largely upheld the plaintiffs’ claim that the Czech mitigation measures adopted to date were contrary to the Paris Agreement; and it found that the country must substantially strengthen its reduction rate of greenhouse gas emissions. This result—the first of its kind in the Czech Republic—was a surprise to many in a country whose courts have been conservative in environmental matters. The judgment fits in well with current trends in climate litigation and follows the arguments of landmark climate cases such as Urgenda. This article provides a summary of the lawsuit and analyses two of the most important parts of the judgment: the court’s reasoning on the state’s obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and its ‘climatic’ interpretation of the fundamental right to a favourable environment, as guaranteed by the Czech Constitution.
{"title":"The First Czech Climate Judgment: A Novel Perspective on the State’s Duty to Mitigate and on the Right to a Favourable Environment","authors":"Hana Müllerová, A. Ač","doi":"10.1163/18786561-12030004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18786561-12030004","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In June 2022, a Czech climate lawsuit, Klimatická žaloba ČR, z. s. and Others v. Government of the Czech Republic and Others was decided by a first-instance court. The litigation was led against the Czech state for insufficient climate mitigation and adaptation effort. The Municipal Court in Prague largely upheld the plaintiffs’ claim that the Czech mitigation measures adopted to date were contrary to the Paris Agreement; and it found that the country must substantially strengthen its reduction rate of greenhouse gas emissions. This result—the first of its kind in the Czech Republic—was a surprise to many in a country whose courts have been conservative in environmental matters. The judgment fits in well with current trends in climate litigation and follows the arguments of landmark climate cases such as Urgenda. This article provides a summary of the lawsuit and analyses two of the most important parts of the judgment: the court’s reasoning on the state’s obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and its ‘climatic’ interpretation of the fundamental right to a favourable environment, as guaranteed by the Czech Constitution.","PeriodicalId":38485,"journal":{"name":"Climate Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41672004","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-26DOI: 10.1163/18786561-12030003
A. Hardiman
Recognizing that significantly increased renewable-energy share (res) is a central component of both EU climate and environmental law, the focus of this paper is the point of intersection between these legal frameworks. Renewable-energy infrastructure projects are necessary for climate-mitigation purposes, but they give rise to significant local environmental impacts that have a negative effect on local communities and environmental conditions. The objective of environmental protection, ‘to preserve, protect and improve the quality of the environment’, does not fully align with the objectives of climate mitigation, which are designed to safeguard the needs of future generations and the long-term environment. While EU environmental policy encompasses ‘measures designed to combat climate change’, little attention has been afforded in relevant Directives to the impact of climate-mitigation measures on the environment. There is no provision for proportionate treatment of the impacts of these measures in environmental governance procedures. Analysis of the provisions of the eia and Habitats Directives, which directly impact the authorization of renewable-energy projects, reveals that climate as a component of EU environmental policy is dealt with via the limitation and control of greenhouse gas emissions, an incomplete approach that fails to provide for the development of new large-scale infrastructure that can mitigate the generation of greenhouse gas emissions through provision of sustainable energy sources. The European Union’s revised Trans European Network – Energy (ten-E) Regulation (June 2022) provides that energy infrastructure in the form of projects of common interest shall be deemed to be in the overriding public interest in the context of the Habitats Directive, an exception to that Directive’s prohibition on development that could negatively impact protected Natura 2000 features. A proposal pursuant to the EU Commission’s plan ‘REPowerEU’ recommends an amendment to the Renewable Energy Directive to introduce a similar overriding provision in respect of all renewable-energy infrastructure projects. These sidestepping provisions in climate-energy laws, made necessary by the failure of EU environmental law to incorporate effective provisions that promote climate change measures, are an incomplete solution that will limit the regulation of an environmentally responsible approach to increased res and are likely to be challenged.
{"title":"Climate, Energy – and Environment? Reconciliation of EU Environmental Law with the Implementation Realities of EU Climate Law","authors":"A. Hardiman","doi":"10.1163/18786561-12030003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18786561-12030003","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Recognizing that significantly increased renewable-energy share (res) is a central component of both EU climate and environmental law, the focus of this paper is the point of intersection between these legal frameworks. Renewable-energy infrastructure projects are necessary for climate-mitigation purposes, but they give rise to significant local environmental impacts that have a negative effect on local communities and environmental conditions. The objective of environmental protection, ‘to preserve, protect and improve the quality of the environment’, does not fully align with the objectives of climate mitigation, which are designed to safeguard the needs of future generations and the long-term environment. While EU environmental policy encompasses ‘measures designed to combat climate change’, little attention has been afforded in relevant Directives to the impact of climate-mitigation measures on the environment. There is no provision for proportionate treatment of the impacts of these measures in environmental governance procedures. Analysis of the provisions of the eia and Habitats Directives, which directly impact the authorization of renewable-energy projects, reveals that climate as a component of EU environmental policy is dealt with via the limitation and control of greenhouse gas emissions, an incomplete approach that fails to provide for the development of new large-scale infrastructure that can mitigate the generation of greenhouse gas emissions through provision of sustainable energy sources. The European Union’s revised Trans European Network – Energy (ten-E) Regulation (June 2022) provides that energy infrastructure in the form of projects of common interest shall be deemed to be in the overriding public interest in the context of the Habitats Directive, an exception to that Directive’s prohibition on development that could negatively impact protected Natura 2000 features. A proposal pursuant to the EU Commission’s plan ‘REPowerEU’ recommends an amendment to the Renewable Energy Directive to introduce a similar overriding provision in respect of all renewable-energy infrastructure projects. These sidestepping provisions in climate-energy laws, made necessary by the failure of EU environmental law to incorporate effective provisions that promote climate change measures, are an incomplete solution that will limit the regulation of an environmentally responsible approach to increased res and are likely to be challenged.","PeriodicalId":38485,"journal":{"name":"Climate Law","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41519449","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-25DOI: 10.1163/18786561-20210003
J. McDonald, Phillipa C. McCormack
‘Shared responsibility’ for managing risk is central to Australian adaptation and disaster-resilience policies, yet there is no consensus on what this term means or how it is discharged by various actors at each phase of the risk-management process. This has implications for both equity and effectiveness, because shared responsibility assumes that individuals have capacity and that the decisions they make will not conflict with other public values. This article explores how law assigns responsibility for climate adaptation by examining its approach to a specific climate impact in Australia: the increasing frequency and severity of bushfire. Australia faces heightened bushfire risk from the interplay of climate change effects and demographic shifts. While planning laws attempt to limit exposure of new communities to fire risks, adapting existing communities involves hazard mitigation across the landscape, through fuel reduction – accomplished by controlled burning or clearing of brush and timber – and the construction of fuel breaks. Most Australian jurisdictions impose some form of obligation on land managers or owners to mitigate fire risk. However, the effectiveness of shifting responsibility onto individual landholders, measured in terms of bushfire risk mitigation, is not established. The shifting of responsibility also has implications for equity because shared responsibility for fire management assumes that individuals know what must be done and have the capacity to do it themselves or pay others to. The law also privileges bushfire protection above other public values, including the protection of biodiversity and cultural values. To account for the complexity of adaptation decision-making, bushfire mitigation laws should avoid creating inequities and should include mechanisms for resolving trade-offs between competing values.
{"title":"Responsibility and Risk-Sharing in Climate Adaptation: a Case Study of Bushfire Risk in Australia","authors":"J. McDonald, Phillipa C. McCormack","doi":"10.1163/18786561-20210003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18786561-20210003","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000‘Shared responsibility’ for managing risk is central to Australian adaptation and disaster-resilience policies, yet there is no consensus on what this term means or how it is discharged by various actors at each phase of the risk-management process. This has implications for both equity and effectiveness, because shared responsibility assumes that individuals have capacity and that the decisions they make will not conflict with other public values. This article explores how law assigns responsibility for climate adaptation by examining its approach to a specific climate impact in Australia: the increasing frequency and severity of bushfire. Australia faces heightened bushfire risk from the interplay of climate change effects and demographic shifts. While planning laws attempt to limit exposure of new communities to fire risks, adapting existing communities involves hazard mitigation across the landscape, through fuel reduction – accomplished by controlled burning or clearing of brush and timber – and the construction of fuel breaks. Most Australian jurisdictions impose some form of obligation on land managers or owners to mitigate fire risk. However, the effectiveness of shifting responsibility onto individual landholders, measured in terms of bushfire risk mitigation, is not established. The shifting of responsibility also has implications for equity because shared responsibility for fire management assumes that individuals know what must be done and have the capacity to do it themselves or pay others to. The law also privileges bushfire protection above other public values, including the protection of biodiversity and cultural values. To account for the complexity of adaptation decision-making, bushfire mitigation laws should avoid creating inequities and should include mechanisms for resolving trade-offs between competing values.","PeriodicalId":38485,"journal":{"name":"Climate Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41808072","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-25DOI: 10.1163/18786561-20210001
L. Nishimura
This article analyses international obligations related to adaptation in the UN climate change regime. It argues that the interpretation and application of these obligations can compel and shape anticipatory, proactive state measures on, and support for, adaptation. To accomplish this, the article begins from the premise that the regime’s climate treaties are a dynamic part of a system of international law that should strive for coherence. Accordingly, it takes an evolutive approach to interpreting obligations. The article applies the tools of treaty interpretation, and systemic integration in particular, to incorporate positive duties from human rights law into an understanding of adaptation obligations. It also applies the regime’s operative principles alongside integration. Taken together, they help to shape adaptation obligations, strengthening arguments for action in advance of foreseeable harm and for support based on differentiation. Such an approach can lead to adaptation that better avoids risks to people and their rights, to prioritize those most vulnerable and to ensure access to essential resources.
{"title":"Adaptation and Anticipatory Action: Integrating Human Rights Duties into the Climate Change Regime","authors":"L. Nishimura","doi":"10.1163/18786561-20210001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18786561-20210001","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This article analyses international obligations related to adaptation in the UN climate change regime. It argues that the interpretation and application of these obligations can compel and shape anticipatory, proactive state measures on, and support for, adaptation. To accomplish this, the article begins from the premise that the regime’s climate treaties are a dynamic part of a system of international law that should strive for coherence. Accordingly, it takes an evolutive approach to interpreting obligations. The article applies the tools of treaty interpretation, and systemic integration in particular, to incorporate positive duties from human rights law into an understanding of adaptation obligations. It also applies the regime’s operative principles alongside integration. Taken together, they help to shape adaptation obligations, strengthening arguments for action in advance of foreseeable harm and for support based on differentiation. Such an approach can lead to adaptation that better avoids risks to people and their rights, to prioritize those most vulnerable and to ensure access to essential resources.","PeriodicalId":38485,"journal":{"name":"Climate Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45383247","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-25DOI: 10.1163/18786561-12010002
Oliver Fuo, Cathrin Zengerling, Debora Sotto
This article aims to contribute to the growing body of urban climate-governance research from a comparative legal perspective. It analyses the climate-related mitigation and adaptation efforts in the building sector of three cities: Cape Town (South Africa), Hamburg (Germany), and São Paulo (Brazil). We examine national, state, and local laws and policies with a focus on building-related energy, water, and green infrastructure. The comparative analysis reveals similarities and differences in multilevel building-related laws and policies that partly enhance and partly limit cities’ climate-mitigation and adaptation efforts. The study also carves out synergies, conflicts, and key challenges in building-related climate mitigation and adaptation at the city level and suggests how identified shortcomings could be overcome.
{"title":"A Comparative Legal Analysis of Urban Climate Mitigation and Adaptation in the Building Sector in Brazil, Germany, and South Africa","authors":"Oliver Fuo, Cathrin Zengerling, Debora Sotto","doi":"10.1163/18786561-12010002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18786561-12010002","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This article aims to contribute to the growing body of urban climate-governance research from a comparative legal perspective. It analyses the climate-related mitigation and adaptation efforts in the building sector of three cities: Cape Town (South Africa), Hamburg (Germany), and São Paulo (Brazil). We examine national, state, and local laws and policies with a focus on building-related energy, water, and green infrastructure. The comparative analysis reveals similarities and differences in multilevel building-related laws and policies that partly enhance and partly limit cities’ climate-mitigation and adaptation efforts. The study also carves out synergies, conflicts, and key challenges in building-related climate mitigation and adaptation at the city level and suggests how identified shortcomings could be overcome.","PeriodicalId":38485,"journal":{"name":"Climate Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42288714","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-16DOI: 10.1163/18786561-11030003
Géraud de Lassus St-Geniès
With Article 6.2, the Paris Agreement offers its parties the possibility to engage in cooperative approaches to import mitigation outcomes that have been generated on the territory of another party and use these international transferred mitigation outcomes (itmos) for compliance purposes. While this possibility seems to pave the way to more—and presumably new forms of—climate cooperation outside the UN climate regime, this paper asks whether Article 6.2 is also likely to spark disagreement among states. It is suggested that it bears as much a potential to generate cooperation as to generate conflict. To illustrate that point, the paper explains how Article 6.2 could lead to conflict between developed and developing states over the legality of unilateral restrictions on the admittance of itmos and discusses what such conflict may look like, as well as its possible legal and political implications.
{"title":"Might Cooperative Approaches Not Be So Cooperative? Exploring the Potential of Article 6.2 of the Paris Agreement to Generate Legal Disputes","authors":"Géraud de Lassus St-Geniès","doi":"10.1163/18786561-11030003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18786561-11030003","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000With Article 6.2, the Paris Agreement offers its parties the possibility to engage in cooperative approaches to import mitigation outcomes that have been generated on the territory of another party and use these international transferred mitigation outcomes (itmos) for compliance purposes. While this possibility seems to pave the way to more—and presumably new forms of—climate cooperation outside the UN climate regime, this paper asks whether Article 6.2 is also likely to spark disagreement among states. It is suggested that it bears as much a potential to generate cooperation as to generate conflict. To illustrate that point, the paper explains how Article 6.2 could lead to conflict between developed and developing states over the legality of unilateral restrictions on the admittance of itmos and discusses what such conflict may look like, as well as its possible legal and political implications.","PeriodicalId":38485,"journal":{"name":"Climate Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48270649","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-16DOI: 10.1163/18786561-11030002
L. Benjamin, D. Wirth
The Paris Rulebook—nearly complete, but with the ‘markets’ text tied to Article 6 of the Paris Agreement unadopted after nearly three years—invites comparison with a similar effort under the Kyoto Protocol: the Marrakesh Accords. This article compares the Paris Rulebook and the 2001 Marrakesh Accords implementing the Kyoto Protocol as a way of exploring the similarities and differences in regulatory design between the two sub-regimes and their implications for sustainability and climate integrity. An in-depth analysis of the negotiating history and the text of the two instruments yields trenchant and perhaps unexpected conclusions. Issues that plagued the Marrakesh Accords also appear in similar form in the Paris Rulebook discussions around Article 6; however, because of the difference in structure between the two treaties, even more complex issues have arisen in the Rulebook negotiations. The article reflects on the fundamentally different purpose of the ‘markets’ text in the Rulebook in comparison with its Kyoto/Marrakesh precursor, as well as on the implications of those differences for the Article 6 negotiations.
{"title":"From Marrakesh to Glasgow: Looking Backward to Move Forward on Emissions Trading","authors":"L. Benjamin, D. Wirth","doi":"10.1163/18786561-11030002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18786561-11030002","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The Paris Rulebook—nearly complete, but with the ‘markets’ text tied to Article 6 of the Paris Agreement unadopted after nearly three years—invites comparison with a similar effort under the Kyoto Protocol: the Marrakesh Accords. This article compares the Paris Rulebook and the 2001 Marrakesh Accords implementing the Kyoto Protocol as a way of exploring the similarities and differences in regulatory design between the two sub-regimes and their implications for sustainability and climate integrity. An in-depth analysis of the negotiating history and the text of the two instruments yields trenchant and perhaps unexpected conclusions. Issues that plagued the Marrakesh Accords also appear in similar form in the Paris Rulebook discussions around Article 6; however, because of the difference in structure between the two treaties, even more complex issues have arisen in the Rulebook negotiations. The article reflects on the fundamentally different purpose of the ‘markets’ text in the Rulebook in comparison with its Kyoto/Marrakesh precursor, as well as on the implications of those differences for the Article 6 negotiations.","PeriodicalId":38485,"journal":{"name":"Climate Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46050638","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：