Climate change regulation : implications for business executives

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide an overarching conceptual decision model that delineates the major issues and decisions associated with carbon regulations that will allow executives to better understand the potential regulatory schemes and implications that may be imposed in the near future.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors use the extant literature as the foundation to develop a conceptual model of the decisions pertaining to climate change regulation that face business executives today.
Findings – This paper suggests four major categories of issues that must be addressed in any climate change regulatory scheme. These include: “scope” – will carbon emission management systems be global or regional; “who pays” – will the consumer or will the supply chain be responsible for the cost of their emissions; “market or compliance-based mechanisms” – will the CO2 emissions system be market-based or a compliance-based regulatory system; and “criteria” – how can credence of the remedy be established – what is necessary for a business initiative to qualify for as a creditable carbon offset?
Research limitations/implications – This paper offers a framework that categories the fundamental decisions that must be made in any climate change regulation. This framework may be useful in advancing research into any of the four categories of decisions and their implications on commerce and the environment. This paper is designed to be managerially useful and in that way does limit its ability to specifically advance many dimensions of research.
Practical implications – The paper offers executives for a simple model of the decisions that must be made to craft an effective climate change regulatory scheme. In addition, it suggests how these decisions may create exploitable economic opportunities for innovative and proactive firms.
Originality/value – This paper adds value to the debate by clarifying the decisions that must be addressed in any climate change regulation scheme.

Climate change and IMO technical and operational measures for reduction of emissions of greenhouse gas from ships

According to a study conducted by the International Maritime organisation (IMO) shipping sector is responsible for 3.3% of the global Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol calls upon states to pursue limitation or reduction of emissions of GHG from marine bunker fuels working through the IMO. In 2011, 14 years after the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol, the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) of the IMO has adopted mandatory energy efficiency measures for international shipping which can be treated as the first ever mandatory global GHG reduction instrument for an international industry. The MEPC approved an amendment of Annex VI of the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78) to introduce a mandatory Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) for new ships and the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) for all ships. Considering the growth projections of human population and world trade the technical and operational measures may not be able to reduce the amount of GHG emissions from international shipping in a satisfactory level. Therefore, the IMO is considering to introduce market-based mechanisms that may serve two purposes including providing a fiscal incentive for the maritime industry to invest in more energy efficient manner and off-setting of growing ship emissions. Some leading developing countries already voiced their serious reservations on the newly adopted IMO regulations stating that by imposing the same obligation on all countries, irrespective of their economic status, this amendment has rejected the Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility (the CBDR Principle), which has always been the cornerstone of international climate change law discourses. They also claimed that negotiation for a market based mechanism should not be continued without a clear commitment from the developed counters for promotion of technical co-operation and transfer of technology relating to the improvement of energy efficiency of ships. Against this backdrop, this article explores the challenges for the developing counters in the implementation of already adopted technical and operational measures.

Greenwashing the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Fossil fuels, the environment, and climate change

There has been much controversy over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – a plurilateral trade agreement involving a dozen nations from throughout the Pacific Rim – and its impact upon the environment, biodiversity, and climate change. The secretive treaty negotiations involve Australia and New Zealand; countries from South East Asia such as Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, and Japan; the South American nations of Peru and Chile; and the members of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Canada, Mexico and the United States. There was an agreement reached between the parties in October 2015. The participants asserted: ‘We expect this historic agreement to promote economic growth, support higher-paying jobs; enhance innovation, productivity and competitiveness; raise living standards; reduce poverty in our countries; and to promote transparency, good governance, and strong labor and environmental protections.’ The final texts of the agreement were published in November 2015. There has been discussion as to whether other countries – such as Indonesia, the Philippines, and South Korea – will join the deal. There has been much debate about the impact of this proposed treaty upon intellectual property, the environment, biodiversity and climate change. There have been similar concerns about the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – a proposed trade agreement between the United States and the European Union. In 2011, the United States Trade Representative developed a Green Paper on trade, conservation, and the environment in the context of the TPP. In its rhetoric, the United States Trade Representative has maintained that it has been pushing for strong, enforceable environmental standards in the TPP. In a key statement in 2014, the United States Trade Representative Mike Froman insisted: ‘The United States’ position on the environment in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations is this: environmental stewardship is a core American value, and we will insist on a robust, fully enforceable environment chapter in the TPP or we will not come to agreement.’ The United States Trade Representative maintained: ‘Our proposals in the TPP are centered around the enforcement of environmental laws, including those implementing multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) in TPP partner countries, and also around trailblazing, first-ever conservation proposals that will raise standards across the region’. Moreover, the United States Trade Representative asserted: ‘Furthermore, our proposals would enhance international cooperation and create new opportunities for public participation in environmental governance and enforcement.’ The United States Trade Representative has provided this public outline of the Environment Chapter of the TPP: A meaningful outcome on environment will ensure that the agreement appropriately addresses important trade and environment challenges and enhances the mutual supportiveness of trade and environment. The Trans-Pacific Partnership countries share the view that the environment text should include effective provisions on trade-related issues that would help to reinforce environmental protection and are discussing an effective institutional arrangement to oversee implementation and a specific cooperation framework for addressing capacity building needs. They also are discussing proposals on new issues, such as marine fisheries and other conservation issues, biodiversity, invasive alien species, climate change, and environmental goods and services. Mark Linscott, an assistant Trade Representative testified: ‘An environment chapter in the TPP should strengthen country commitments to enforce their environmental laws and regulations, including in areas related to ocean and fisheries governance, through the effective enforcement obligation subject to dispute settlement.’ Inside US Trade has commented: ‘While not initially expected to be among the most difficult areas, the environment chapter has emerged as a formidable challenge, partly due to disagreement over the United States proposal to make environmental obligations binding under the TPP dispute settlement mechanism’. Joshua Meltzer from the Brookings Institute contended that the trade agreement could be a boon for the protection of the environment in the Pacific Rim: Whether it is depleting fisheries, declining biodiversity or reduced space in the atmosphere for Greenhouse Gas emissions, the underlying issue is resource scarcity. And in a world where an additional 3 billion people are expected to enter the middle class over the next 15 years, countries need to find new and creative ways to cooperate in order to satisfy the legitimate needs of their population for growth and opportunity while using resources in a manner that is sustainable for current and future generations. The TPP parties already represent a diverse range of developed and developing countries. Should the TPP become a free trade agreement of the Asia-Pacific region, it will include the main developed and developing countries and will be a strong basis for building a global consensus on these trade and environmental issues. The TPP has been promoted by its proponents as a boon to the environment. The United States Trade Representative has maintained that the TPP will protect the environment: ‘The United States’ position on the environment in the TPP negotiations is this: environmental stewardship is a core American value, and we will insist on a robust, fully enforceable environment chapter in the TPP or we will not come to agreement.’ The United States Trade Representative discussed ‘Trade for a Greener World’ on World Environment Day. Andrew Robb, at the time the Australian Trade and Investment Minister, vowed that the TPP will contain safeguards for the protection of the environment. In November 2015, after the release of the TPP text, Rohan Patel, the Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, sought to defend the environmental credentials of the TPP. He contended that the deal had been supported by the Nature Conservancy, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, the World Wildlife Fund, and World Animal Protection. The United States Congress, though, has been conflicted by the United States Trade Representative’s arguments about the TPP and the environment. In 2012, members of the United States Congress - including Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and John Kerry (D-MA) – wrote a letter, arguing that the trade agreement needs to provide strong protection for the environment: ‘We believe that a '21st century agreement' must have an environment chapter that guarantees ongoing sustainable trade and creates jobs, and this is what American businesses and consumers want and expect also.’ The group stressed that ‘A binding and enforceable TPP environment chapter that stands up for American interests is critical to our support of the TPP’. The Congressional leaders maintained: ‘We believe the 2007 bipartisan congressional consensus on environmental provisions included in recent trade agreements should serve as the framework for the environment chapter of the TPP.’ In 2013, senior members of the Democratic leadership expressed their opposition to granting President Barack Obama a fast-track authority in respect of the TPP House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said: ‘No on fast-track – Camp-Baucus – out of the question.’ Senator Majority leader Harry Reid commented: ‘I’m against Fast-Track: Everyone would be well-advised to push this right now.’ Senator Elizabeth Warren has been particularly critical of the process and the substance of the negotiations in the TPP: From what I hear, Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, telecom, big polluters and outsourcers are all salivating at the chance to rig the deal in the upcoming trade talks. So the question is, Why are the trade talks secret? You’ll love this answer. Boy, the things you learn on Capitol Hill. I actually have had supporters of the deal say to me ‘They have to be secret, because if the American people knew what was actually in them, they would be opposed. Think about that. Real people, people whose jobs are at stake, small-business owners who don’t want to compete with overseas companies that dump their waste in rivers and hire workers for a dollar a day—those people, people without an army of lobbyists—they would be opposed. I believe if people across this country would be opposed to a particular trade agreement, then maybe that trade agreement should not happen. The Finance Committee in the United States Congress deliberated over the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations in 2014. The new chair Ron Wyden has argued that there needs to be greater transparency in trade. Nonetheless, he has mooted the possibility of a ‘smart-track’ to reconcile the competing demands of the Obama Administration, and United States Congress. Wyden insisted: ‘The new breed of trade challenges spawned over the last generation must be addressed in imaginative new policies and locked into enforceable, ambitious, job-generating trade agreements.’ He emphasized that such agreements ‘must reflect the need for a free and open Internet, strong labor rights and environmental protections.’ Elder Democrat Sander Levin warned that the TPP failed to provide proper protection for the environment: The TPP parties are considering a different structure to protect the environment than the one adopted in the May 10 Agreement, which directly incorporated seven multilateral environmental agreements into the text of past trade agreements. While the form is less important than the substance, the TPP must provide an overall level of environmental protection that upholds and builds upon the May 10 standard, including fully enforceable obligations. But many of our trading partners are actively seeking to weaken the text to the point of falling short of that standard, including on key issues like conservation. Nonetheless, 2015, President Barack Obama was able to secure the overall support of the United States Congress for his ‘fast-track’ authority. This was made possible by the Republicans and dissident Democrats. Notably, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden switched sides, and was transformed from a critic of the TPP to an apologist for the TPP. For their part, green political parties and civil society organisations have been concerned about the secretive nature of the negotiations; and the substantive implications of the treaty for the environment. Environmental groups and climate advocates have been sceptical of the environmental claims made by the White House for the TPP. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, the Australian Greens and the Green Party of Canada have released a joint declaration on the TPP observing: ‘More than just another trade agreement, the TPP provisions could hinder access to safe, affordable medicines, weaken local content rules for media, stifle high-tech innovation, and even restrict the ability of future governments to legislate for the good of public health and the environment’. In the United States, civil society groups such as the Sierra Club, Public Citizen, WWF, the Friends of the Earth, the Rainforest Action Network and 350.org have raised concerns about the TPP and the environment. Allison Chin, President of the Sierra Club, complained about the lack of transparency, due process, and public participation in the TPP talks: ‘This is a stealth affront to the principles of our democracy.’ Maude Barlow’s The Council of Canadians has also been concerned about the TPP and environmental justice. New Zealand Sustainability Council executive director Simon Terry said the agreement showed ‘minimal real gains for nature’. A number of organisations have joined a grand coalition of civil society organisations, which are opposed to the grant of a fast-track. On the 15th January 2013, WikiLeaks released the draft Environment Chapter of the TPP - along with a report by the Chairs of the Environmental Working Group. Julian Assange, WikiLeaks' publisher, stated: ‘Today's WikiLeaks release shows that the public sweetener in the TPP is just media sugar water.’ He observed: ‘The fabled TPP environmental chapter turns out to be a toothless public relations exercise with no enforcement mechanism.’ This article provides a critical examination of the draft Environment Chapter of the TPP. The overall argument of the article is that the Environment Chapter of the TPP is an exercise in greenwashing – it is a public relations exercise by the United States Trade Representative, rather than a substantive regime for the protection of the environment in the Pacific Rim. Greenwashing has long been a problem in commerce, in which companies making misleading and deceptive claims about the environment. In his 2012 book, Greenwash: Big Brands and Carbon Scams, Guy Pearse considers the rise of green marketing and greenwashing. Government greenwashing is also a significant issue. In his book Storms of My Grandchildren, the climate scientist James Hansen raises his concerns about government greenwashing. Such a problem is apparent with the TPP – in which there was a gap between the assertions of the United States Government, and the reality of the agreement. This article contends that the TPP fails to meet the expectations created by President Barack Obama, the White House, and the United States Trade Representative about the environmental value of the agreement. First, this piece considers the relationship of the TPP to multilateral environmental treaties. Second, it explores whether the provisions in respect of the environment are enforceable. Third, this article examines the treatment of trade and biodiversity in the TPP. Fourth, this study considers the question of marine capture fisheries. Fifth, there is an evaluation of the cursory text in the TPP on conservation. Sixth, the article considers trade in environmental services under the TPP. Seventh, this article highlights the tensions between the TPP and substantive international climate action. It is submitted that the TPP undermines effective and meaningful government action and regulation in respect of climate change. The conclusion also highlights that a number of other chapters of the TPP will impact upon the protection of the environment – including the Investment Chapter, the Intellectual Property Chapter, the Technical Barriers to Trade Chapter, and the text on public procurement.

Ethical Values and the Integrity of the Climate Change Regime

This book investigates the ethical values that inform the global carbon integrity system, and reflects on alternative norms that could or should do so. The global carbon integrity system comprises the emerging international architecture being built to respond to the climate change. This architecture can be understood as an 'integrity system'- an inter-related set of institutions, governance arrangements, regulations and practices that work to ensure the system performs its role faithfully and effectively. This volume investigates the ways ethical values impact on where and how the integrity system works, where it fails, and how it can be improved. With a wide array of perspectives across many disciplines, including ethicists, philosophers, lawyers, governance experts and political theorists, the chapters seek to explore the positive values driving the global climate change processes, to offer an understanding of the motivations justifying the creation of the regime and the way that social norms impact upon the operation of the integrity system. The collection focuses on the nexus between ideal ethics and real-world implementation through institutions and laws. The book will be of interest to policy makers, climate change experts, carbon taxation regulators, academics, legal practitioners and researchers.

Review of climate change impacts on marine fisheries in the UK and Ireland

1.Commercial fishing is an important socio-economic activity in coastal regions of the UK and Ireland. Ocean–atmospheric changes caused by greenhouse gas emissions are likely to affect future fish and shellfish production, and lead to increasing challenges in ensuring long-term sustainable fisheries management. 2.The paper reviews existing knowledge and understanding of the exposure of marine ecosystems to ocean-atmospheric changes, the consequences of these changes for marine fisheries in the UK and Ireland, and the adaptability of the UK and Irish fisheries sector. 3.Ocean warming is resulting in shifts in the distribution of exploited species and is affecting the productivity of fish stocks and underlying marine ecosystems. In addition, some studies suggest that ocean acidification may have large potential impacts on fisheries resources, in particular shell-forming invertebrates. 4.These changes may lead to loss of productivity, but also the opening of new fishing opportunities, depending on the interactions between climate impacts, fishing grounds and fleet types. They will also affect fishing regulations, the price of fish products and operating costs, which in turn will affect the economic performance of the UK and Irish fleets. 5.Key knowledge gaps exist in our understanding of the implications of climate and ocean chemistry changes for marine fisheries in the UK and Ireland, particularly on the social and economic responses of the fishing sectors to climate change. However, these gaps should not delay climate change mitigation and adaptation policy actions, particularly those measures that clearly have other ‘co-benefits’.

Climate Change, national politics and grassroots action: an introduction

Climate change continues to dominate academic work within green/environmental politics. Indeed, there appears to be almost an inverse relationship between the lack of political leadership on tackling climate change and the growth in ever more sophisticated academic analyses of this complex and multifaceted problem. There is an increasing disjunction between the growth in our knowledge and understanding of the ethical, political, economic, sociological, cultural, and psychological aspects of climate change and the lack of political achievement in putting in place clear and binding targets, an agreed decarbonisation roadmap, and associated regulatory and policy instruments with enforcement. This gap might be taken as evidence that we do not need more reports on climate change. To quote that most unlikely of green politicians, Arnold Schwarzenegger, former Governor of California: ‘The debate is over. We know the science. We see the threat. And we know that the time for action is now’ (California Energy Commission 2007, p. 1). This special issue focuses on a variety of ways in which climate change is conceptualised in normative political and ethical theory, and addressed in policy and regulations.

TMI for urban resilience : measuring and mapping long-term climate change effects on soil moisture

The effect of climate change on the shallow expansive foundation conditions of resident dwellings is costing several hundred billion dollars worldwide. The design and costs of constructing or repairing residential footings is greatly influenced by the degree of ground movement, which is driven by the magnitude of change in soil moisture. The impacts of climate change on urban infrastructure are expected to include accelerated degradation of materials and foundations of buildings and facilities, increased ground movement, changes in ground water affecting the chemical structure of foundations, and fatigue of structures from extreme storm events. Previous research found that residential houses that were built less than five years ago have suffered major cracks and other damage caused by slab movement after record rainfall. The Thornthwaite Moisture Index (TMI) categorises climate on the basis of rainfall, temperature, potential evapotranspiration and the water holding capacity of the soil. Originally TMI was mainly used to map soil moisture conditions for agriculture but soon became a method to predict pavement and foundation changes. Few researchers have developed TMI maps for Australia, but generally, their accuracy is low or unknown, and their use is limited. The aims of this paper are: (1) To produce accurate maps of TMI for the state of Victoria for 100 years (1913 to 2012) in 20 year periods using long-term historical climatic data and advanced spatial statistics methods in GIS, and (2) Analyse the spatial and temporal changes of TMI in Victoria. Preliminary results suggest that a better understanding of climate change through long-term TMI mapping can assist urban planning and guide construction regulations towards the development of cities which are more resilient.

A changing climate of skepticism: The factors shaping climate change coverage in the US press

Skepticism toward climate change has a long tradition in the United States. We focus on mass media as the conveyors of the image of climate change and ask: Is climate change skepticism still a characteristic of US print media coverage? If so, to what degree and in what form? And which factors might pave the way for skeptics entering mass media debates? We conducted a quantitative content analysis of US print media during one year (1 June 2012 to 31 May 2013). Our results show that the debate has changed: fundamental forms of climate change skepticism (such as denial of anthropogenic causes) have been abandoned in the coverage, being replaced by more subtle forms (such as the goal to avoid binding regulations). We find no evidence for the norm of journalistic balance, nor do our data support the idea that it is the conservative press that boosts skepticism.

TTIP and Climate Change – How real are Race to the Bottom Concerns?

This paper examines concerns about the impact that TTIP could have on existing and future climate policies and laws from the inclusion of provisions on investment protection including investor-to-State dispute settlement (ISDS), the reduction of non-tariff barriers and the introduction of rules for trade in energy and raw materials. It argues that from an environmental perspective, ISDS should not necessarily be seen as a regime that goes against the defence of the environment or prevention of climate change. Although it might be used to challenge policies of an EU home State that increase levels of environmental protection, it can also be used to contest changes in an EU home State’s environmental policies that would reduce the protection of the environment, if foreign investment is affected. To a large extent, this also holds true for other areas of TTIP negotiations. While the achievement of a balance between rules that promote trade and those that maintain policy space for governments to respond to environmental concerns has to be closely monitored, benefits for climate could be seized from harmonisation of carbon laws at the level of the strictest regulations of two parties, provisions that promote trade in low carbon technologies and renewable energy and bilateral cooperation on climate change.

An Assessment of US Progress towards its Pledge on Climate Change Mitigation. CEPS ECP Report No. 12, 15 October 2012

In 2009, President Obama pledged that, by 2020, the United States would achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions of 17% from 2005 levels. With the failure of Congress to adopt comprehensive climate legislation in 2010, the feasibility of the pledge was put in doubt. However, we find that the United States is near to reaching this goal: the country is currently on course to achieve reductions of 16.3% from 2005 levels in 2020. Three factors contribute to this outcome: greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act, secular trends including changes in relative fuel prices and energy efficiency and sub-national efforts. Perhaps even more surprising, domestic emissions are probably lower than would have been the case if the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade proposal had become law in 2010. At this point, however, the United States is expected to fail to meet its financing commitments under the Copenhagen Accord for 2020.

Role of microfinance to support agricultural climate change adaptations in Indonesia: Encouraging private sector participation in climate finance

The demands of mitigation and adaptation policies are important to understanding a country’s climate change preparation by providing microfinance in the agricultural sector. This could be seen as a strategy to fight against the challenges of future food security. In 2014, Indonesia established climate change adaptation policies. This legislation aims to pave the way for making actions on climate change adaptation mainstream in national and local development planning. Public and private finance have supported the implementation of the climate actions. However, most funding is still used for mitigation. Adaptation finance needs support, especially in agriculture. This research paper studies opportunities for microfinance to play a role together with existing resources in supporting climate change adaptation in Indonesia. The data was acquired and analysed through a literature review, analysis of case studies and interviews with stakeholders in the climate change-related financial sector. The central findings regarding the opportunity for microfinance to contribute to the existing schemes in Indonesian climate change adaptation finance for agriculture are worthy of the result. This study found that adaptation finance is mostly used for indirect activities. Meanwhile, local communities, and farmers in particular, need directly targeted measures to adapt to climate change. An alternative approach is providing microfinance, insurance and capacity development for farmers to produce high quality agricultural products. This would contribute to optimizing the agri-food value chain, which supports socio-economic development of stakeholders, especially farmers. Hence, microfinance appears to be one potential solution to support direct climate change adaptation actions for the agricultural sector. However, this may not be strong enough to finance the entire needs for agricultural climate actions. Adaptation is contextual, so it has to be grounded in the needs of local communities. Microfinance needs public sectors support as well as other resources from the private sector. In the case of rapid response to disasters, which often destroy the agricultural sector, microfinance should be advantageous in supporting adaptation. However, in reality, it does not work, as it is prevented by regulations. So, this can be an area the public sector can support as a risk-taker as well as by providing initial funds and resources for scaling up efforts.

Marketing to change public opinion on climate change : a case study

Corporate advertisers spend far greater budgets than any social marketing campaign and have great potential to change public opinion on the urgent need for action on climate change. However “green-washing” has become a widespread practice by companies that wish to appear to be socially responsible without a genuine commitment and consumers can be very cynical about green marketing campaigns. Can companies be climate change advocates and still satisfy shareholders? This paper offers a case study on an Australian insurance company that argues it can make money from doing the right thing.