The Global Governance Project has launched the Climate Refugee Policy Forum “as a web-based clearinghouse, open for everyone, for up-to-date information on climate refugees and climate-related migration, including academic studies, policy papers, conference announcements, and links to key organizations active in the field.” This could be a valuable resource for those interested in discussing the interface of climate change nad security or human rights.

Yale 360, an  online e-digest published by the Yale School of Foresty and Environmental Studies, has an interesting piece today canvassing the different views of environmentalists regarding the The American Clean Energy and Security Act, more commonly called the Waxman-Markey Bill.  The piece’s title – “The Waxman-Markey Bill:  A Good Start or a Non-Starter?” – provides a good overview of the debate (and, indeed, the general debate around almost all climate change policies).  Most of the comments conclude that, since the bill is the “only game in town” (as Joe Romm puts it), environmentalists have little choice but to support it and work to make it better.  A few comments, though, highlight the serious compromises in the bill, which include stripping EPA of its authority to regulate coal plant emissions under the Clean Air Act, and suggest the policies replacing the Clean Air Act will ultimately take us several steps back.

The different viewpoints could provide a good baseline for a classroom discussion of U.S. climate change policies.  Is it better to support a comprehensive climate change bill and hope it improves over time, or should environmentalists hold out for something better?  What can they realistically expect this Congress to pass?

A new policy brief by Imran Habib Ahmad of the UN’s Development Policy & Analysis division draws the following conclusions:

* Conservative estimates peg total developing-country financing needs for mitigation and adaptation at about $250 billion per year. This would be on the order of 0.5 to 1 per cent of world gross product by 2030;
* Current available bilateral and multi-lateral aid is in the order of $10-20 billion, with perhaps $5 billion more in the pike from current proposals;
* Funding for adaptation and mitigation programs must not be voluntary but tied to agreed long-term commitments, based e.g. on pro rata mechanisms (such as levied percentages of financial flows,
mandatory contributions in relation to GDP). Specific options should be considered include include taxes on capital flows or on international transport, energy use or emissions, or volumes of transactions in
carbon markets, and permit auctioning.

Potential reading for climate change law courses: “Climate Litigation – Emerging Litigation Challenges” by Gil Keteltas, Joanne Lichtman, David Lisi and John Horan. The paper was prepared for use at both the 2008 Georgetown University Law Center Corporate Counsel Institute, and the 2008 ABA Section of Litigation Annual Conference.

The paper could be a good one to assign to students because it both does an excellent job of summarizing cases that have been filed to date and discusses the potential loci for the lion’s share of future litigation, which the authors suggest may be administrative claims and securities litigation.

The UNGA passed a watered down resolution on the interface of climate change and security today; the resolution also calls on the Security-General to issue a report on the matter for UNGA’s next session. The press release is available on the General Assembly’s site.

A webcast on the debate on the resolution is available on the Islands First website.

I will post a link to the text of the resolution when it becomes available, as well as a brief analysis.