Climate Change: Global Warming Mitigation or Adaptation

Climate Change: Global Warming Mitigation or Adaptation

Copyright: © 2015 |Pages: 10
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-7254-3.ch008
OnDemand PDF Download:
$30.00
List Price: $37.50

Abstract

Growing economies of less advanced countries carry part of the mitigation load of climate change. A logical framework analysis identifies the economic impact for mitigation of climate change in less industrialized economies where climate adaptation seems to offer better prospects of feasibility. Financial instruments are proposed within development of a strategic action plan in mitigation of climate change. An implementable policy matrix is formulated accompanied with a set of performance indicators that are coherent with the action plan. Challenges that are specific to growing economies are identified. Recommendations include lessons learned and limitations of alternative renewable energy sources.
Chapter Preview
Top

Background

Definition and Dilemmas of Climate Change Mitigation

The definition of climate change mitigation is provided by the IPCC in its 4th Assessment Report 2007, which states any: “technological change and substitution that reduceresource inputs and emissions per unit of output. Although several social, economic and technological policies would produce an emission reduction, with respect to climate change, mitigation means implementing policies to reduce GHG emissions and enhance sinks” Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) for developing countries are included under the post-Kyoto negotiations. Climate change negotiations process has evolved since Rio up to the current negotiations (mainly up to the Copenhagen Accord). Since its inception, the Kyoto Protocol was designed to be legally binding in emission reduction targets for the Annex I parties (DeCanio, 2009) with the option for flexible mechanisms. Non-Annex I parties can voluntarily lower their emissions through the participation in those flexible mechanisms, most notably the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) which is stipulated in Article 12 of the Protocol. There are 4 main post-Kyoto architectures (Streimikiene and Girdzijauskas, 2009):

  • 1.

    Targets and timetables;

  • 2.

    Harmonized domestic policies and measures;

  • 3.

    Resource transfer from developed countries to developing countries; and

  • 4.

    Economic policies in developing countries.

Mitigation is clearly a global public good (Viguier, 2004) since its benefits accrue to all people and not only to a limited set of people. Therefore, it is categorized by being non-rivalry and non-excludability which is the nature of a public good. Mitigation strategies can have co-benefits. This is the case with linking climate change and air pollution. The reduction of CO2 emissions can have favorable impacts in reducing other air pollutants through burning lesser fossil fuels (Barker, 2003). Annex I Parties (Industrialized countries) and Non-Annex I Parties (Developing countries) have refined their position towards mitigation since the start of the negotiations up to Copenhagen summit in 2009. Issues being negotiated under mitigation include NAMAs and potential consequences as well as institutional arrangements (Friedrich, 2013). Navigating international space allows comparison of positions for various interested parties including:

  • 1.

    Gulf,

  • 2.

    Levant,

  • 3.

    Middle income countries, and

  • 4.

    Industrialized countries.

Complete Chapter List

Search this Book:
Reset