Dear Climate-L readers,

As you are aware, Annex I parties submit their GHG inventories annually to the Secretariat; these are then checked by expert review teams. Whatever arrangement replaces Kyoto, this foundational process of reporting and review is expected to remain in place essentially unchanged. But how well have states responded to it? What administrative and legal models have been used to implement it? How transparent is the process at all levels? What compromises does it contain? How accurate and complete are the data coming out of it? I am seeking to establish a network of academics and practitioners to investigate these and related questions. Please let me know if you are interested and if you will be in Copenhagen. I will organize a startup workshop there to discuss project design, potential research projects, sources of funding, and organization.

Regards,

Alexander Zahar
Climate Law (editor-in-chief)
Griffith Law School
Australia

There are obviously a million sources for climate change information today, but one of my favorites is Carbon Positive News on the Carbon Positive website (look under “Feature Stories” in the tabs on the left frame). The site also contains a tremendous repository of information on specific climate topics.

OPEN INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE

International Law & Policy for a Low-Carbon Economy Programme

UNFCCC COP Climate Conference, Dec 07-18 Copenhagen 2009

The world is moving towards a more sustainable, low-carbon economy. New law & policy frameworks provide important tools. But how to get the rules right, domestically & internationally? How to secure sustainable climate financing, refine carbon trading rules & promote investment into REDD & clean tech development, while ensuring respect for the rights of the most vulnerable? What regulatory & governance systems & what policy innovations can help? What have we learned to date, what are the best legal practices & what are key priorities for a future global law & policy research agenda?

A Consortium of partners from world-class universities, international organisations & leading civil society actors is hosting a joint programme of special events on international law & policy for a low-carbon economy, at the UNFCCC COP 15 Climate Conference in Copenhagen. We warmly invite you to join us for fascinating debates, briefings and celebrations.

The International Law & Policy for a Low Carbon Economy Programme currently revolves around four principal events:

(1) Building the Low-Carbon Economy beyond Copenhagen: The Global Law & Policy Research Agenda / Seminar

In this International Law & Policy Research Seminar, developed & developing country negotiators & leading experts will identify key priorities for the emerging global law & policy research agenda on sustainable development of the low-carbon economy / 10am – 6pm Sat Dec 12, Clarion Hotel, Copenhagen

(2) Climate Finance: Legal and Regulatory Issues / Course

In this International Capacity-Building Course, registered government, civil society and private sectors delegates will access leading experts to build certified skills in legal & regulatory aspects of climate finance /10am – 4pm Sun Dec 13, University of Copenhagen*, Copenhagen

(3) Developing Sustainable & Equitable Legal Frameworks for the Global Low-Carbon Economy / Side-Event

In this proposed UNFCCC Climate Conference Side-Event, a series of participatory expert-led roundtables will brief COP delegates on the most recent legal frameworks & practices in carbon financing & carbon trading, forestry & clean tech development, & rights-based frameworks for climate change / Event to be confirmed, Bella Center, Copenhagen

(4) Climate Justice & Sustainability / Reception

In this Book Launch Reception & Celebration, global leaders & COP delegates will keynote on the low-carbon economy, sustainability & indigenous rights, & will toast brilliant new international publications such as Freestone & Streck, Legal Aspects of Carbon Trading: Kyoto, Copenhagen & Beyond (OUP 2009) with wine, cheese & chocolates / 6pm – 8pm Wed Dec 16, Bella Center, Copenhagen

This International Law & Policy Programme, chaired by the Centre for International Sustainable Development Law (CISDL), engages leading academic partners from the University of Sydney, New York University, the University of Toronto, the University of Copenhagen, the University of Cambridge, McGill University & the University of Oslo, also the University of Chile, the National Litoral University of Argentina, the University of Beijing & the University of Hong Kong. Key collaborators include the International Development Law Organisation (IDLO), the International Law Association, the UN Environment Programme, the UN Development Programme, ClimateFocus & the Assembly of First Nations, with grateful thanks to Sustainable Prosperity, also Quebec & other governments, for their support.

All COP 15 government and intergovernmental delegates, civil society representatives, business representatives, students and others welcome. For more information or to register your interest in participating, please email , with cc to and  . All event dates and venues are subject to confirmation by Nov 25, with details to be posted on www.cisdl.org.

Kathryn Fuller Fellowships

Advancing Conservation through Science

WWF-US is pleased to announce the availability of Kathryn Fuller Fellowships for 2010. For nearly 50 years WWF has committed to delivering science-based conservation results while incorporating the latest research and innovations into our work. As part of its commitment to advancing conservation through science, WWF established Kathryn Fuller Fellowships to support PhD students and postdoctoral researchers working on issues of exceptional importance and relevance to conservation in <http://www.worldwildlife.org/science/fellowships/fuller/priority-places.html>WWF-US priority places.  This year, the Kathryn Fuller Science for Nature Fund will support doctoral and postdoctoral research in the following three areas.
* <http://www.worldwildlife.org/science/fellowships/fuller/research-topics.html#ecosystem

I’m often asked if there’s a substantial role for individual actions to reduce GHG emissions. There’s an excellent new piece in the the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Dietz, et al., Household Actions Can Provide a Behavioral Wedge to Rapidly Reduce U.S. Carbon Emissions, 106(44) PNAS 18452-18456 (2009) (open access) that quantifies the potential role of household actions in reducing emissions in the United States.  Among the findings of the report:

1. Direct energy use by households in the United States accounts for approximately 38% of overall U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, or 626 million metric tons of carbon. Put in perspective, this constitutes approximately 8% of global emissions, more than than other country other than China;
2. The U.S. could reasonably achieve emissions reductions of 20% in the household sector within 10 years if the most effective non-regulatory interventions were utilized, amounting to 123 MtC/yr., or 7.4% of total national emissions, an amount larger than the total emissions of France;
3. The most effective interventions to induce behavioral change includes the combination of several policy tools (including information, persuasive appeals and incentives), use of strong social marketing, including mass media appeals and community-based approaches; and efforts to address multiple targets, e.g. individuals, communities and businesses.
   1. The most effective package of interventions varies with the category of action targeted
4. Similar percentage reductions could likely be achieved in Canada and Australia given carbon profiles roughly comparable to the U.S.;
5. There is currently insufficient information on the costs and institutional requirements to effectuate large-scale behavioral change initiatives.

This piece could be effectively used in conjunction with Pacala and Socolow’s piece on “stabilization” wedges (Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Cliamte Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies, 305 Science 968-972 (2004)). The PNAS article calculates that the potential reduction in household emissions from non-regulatory mechanisms could result in approximately 3 “wedges”, or 44% of the U.S. contribution at year 10.  I think the study also reminds us that there are many effective short-term oriented interventions that can help us buy some time as we work to structurally de-carbonize the world’s economies.

Below is the final entry in a three-part series of guest blogs by Ken Alex, Senior Assistant Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Environment Section of the California Department of Justice, focusing on climate change litigation in the United States.

================================================================================

The Fifth Circuit issued its opinion in Comer v. Murphy, and the Second Circuit ruled in Connecticut v. AEP that plaintiffs in those cases may proceed with public nuisance actions under federal common law based on the allegation that defendants’ greenhouse gas emissions contribute to global warming and harm plaintiffs.

So, now what?

The rulings have implications in at least four directions.  First, and most obviously defendants in both cases will almost certainly exercise their appeal rights, seeking rehearing and, potentially, cert. to the Supreme Court.  If those avenues prove fruitless, the cases will return to the district court, likely moving into the discovery phase.  It will be a number of months before either case moves to the trial stage, at which point plaintiffs will present evidence that human-generated greenhouse gases are causing global warming, that global warming is, right now, impacting plaintiffs, and that defendants’ emissions of those gases significantly contribute to the problem.  For example, in California, global warming is eroding coastline through sea level rise and repeated extreme storm events and reduced average annual snowpack in the Sierras. The Comer plaintiffs have the additional burden of establishing that defendants’ emissions contributed to a particular, discrete weather event, increasing the strength and destructive force of Hurricane Katrina.

No one suggests that the cases will be easy, but, speaking for California in the AEP case, we certainly look forward to presenting the overwhelming evidence connecting human activity to global warming and its impacts on the State.  Having said that, we recognize that Legislative action would be a better outcome for everyone.

The second implication of the rulings is an increased likelihood of additional cases targeting large-scale greenhouse gas emitters.  These cases are complex, time-consuming, and present some novel issues.  As a result, I do not expect a flood of new cases, but as the impacts of global warming continue to become clearer and greater, if Congress continues its inaction, additional litigation is virtually certain.

Third, there is reason to believe that recognition of a judicial forum for redress of harm caused by global warming may increase the chances of federal legislation because potential defendants who, in the past, have opposed legislation now see benefits.  The availability of a judicial forum increases uncertainty for large greenhouse gas emitters.  In recent weeks, we have seen a growing willingness of companies to support federal legislation.  Comprehensive federal legislation addressing global warming likely would “displace” federal common law, thereby precluding or limiting public nuisance actions and providing a level of certainty sought by companies.

Finally, in the absence of federal legislation, the public nuisance cases increase the chances that EPA will act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions further under the Clean Air Act.  After Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), EPA clearly has authority to regulate GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act, and the Obama Administration has acted to do so with respect to mobile sources.  The mobile source regulations along with the EPA waiver allowing California to proceed with its own mobile source regulations enabled California to dismiss its public nuisance case against the six largest automakers.  EPA is now evaluating regulations for stationary sources, and if the regulations are sufficiently comprehensive, such regulations could limit or foreclose further federal common law court actions.

The interaction of activities at the three branches of government – public nuisance litigation, legislative proposals, and EPA regulatory process – underscore the propriety of the circuit court rulings recognizing the right to litigate under the federal common law.  In the face of significant harm from global warming, we should expect – insist – that all aspects of government be engaged in finding solutions.

Ken Alex