Limiting global warming to well below 2 °C requires that countries and subnational regions align their net-zero targets with coherent carbon budgets. While the fair division of the global carbon budget across nations is well studied, we develop a distributive justice framework for allocating a national carbon budget among subnational regions. Grounded in individuals' equal claims to well-being benefits from emissions-generating activities, our framework distinguishes between consumption- and production-based emissions budgets. For consumption-based emissions, we propose a qualified equal-per-capita allocation that accounts for regional basic needs, historical responsibility, and benefits from past emissions. For production-based emissions, we introduce the Equal Transition Opportunity Production-Based Allocation (ETOPA) mechanism, which accounts for heterogeneous regional economic structures and transition risks. Applying our framework to the European Union, we quantify subnational distributions of production- and consumption-based emissions budgets and reflect on their potential to inform political processes and guide equitable carbon-neutral transformations.

Electrification of all economic sectors and solar photovoltaics (PV) becoming the lowest-cost electricity generation technology in ever more regions give rise to new potential gains of trade. We develop a stylized analytical model to minimize unit energy cost in autarky, open it to different trade configurations, and evaluate it empirically. We identify large potential gains from interhemispheric and global electricity trade by combining complementary seasonal and diurnal cycles. The corresponding high willingness to pay for large-scale transmission suggests far-reaching political economy and regulatory implications.

In implementing the European Green Deal to align with the Paris Agreement, the EU has raised its climate ambition and in 2022 is negotiating the distribution of increased mitigation effort among Member States. Such partitioning of targets among subsidiary entities is becoming a major challenge for implementation of climate policies around the globe. We contrast the 2021 European Commission proposal - an allocation based on a singular country attribute - with transparent and reproducible methods based on three ethical principles. We go beyond traditional effort-sharing literature and explore allocations representing an aggregated least regret compromise between different EU country perspectives on a fair allocation. While the 2021 proposal represents a nuanced compromise for many countries, for others a further redistribution could be considered equitable. Whereas we apply our approach within the setting of the EU negotiations, the framework can easily be adapted to inform debates worldwide on sharing mitigation effort among subsidiary entities.

Background The EU “Winter Package” sets out specific energy and climate goals and urged formation of National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs) by Member States for 2020 to 2030. Integrating scaled-up mitigation technologies within existing economic and social structures face numerous difficulties and require careful planning. While some options may be less suitable than others within a given country context, solutions exist to mitigate negative impacts and build local acceptance. We assess the resulting plans in the context of: (i) economic effects, the trade-offs arising from scaled-up technologies in terms of energy system- and macroeconomic effects; (ii) climate effectiveness, via assessment of carbon payback times of technologies, and (iii) social aspects, with a focus on identifying approaches for wider social adoption and acceptance of mitigation options. Assessment takes the form of case studies for Greece, Austria, and the Netherlands, three EU member states with very different preconditions. Results In terms of economic efficiency, NECPs lack consideration of the unique properties inherent in large-scale renewable energy deployment, and we suggest a possible way forward for future macroeconomic assessment via incorporating integration costs. For economic efficiency, we find that countries may be overestimating their contributions to GHG reduction targets via failure to incorporate life-cycle based analysis. Addressing feasibility, we find that countries address acceptance to different extents, with Greece and Austria holding stakeholder workshops and allowing for public comment on draft NECPs, while the Netherlands undertook a more extensive effort to ensure local public acceptance and involvement in planning. Conclusions The results illustrate that even though NECPs may be finalized, their success is far from ensured, and neglecting to consider key aspects of efficiency, effectiveness and feasibility may result in underestimation of impacts, failure to have as large an impact on GHG reduction as expected, or increasing public resistance to climate policies. We present approaches to deal with gaps in economic and environmental assessment, and highlight methods for improving public acceptance via examples from the case studies and related literature.

Countries' nationally determined contributions to mitigate global warming translate to claims of country specific shares of the remaining carbon budget. The remaining global budget is limited by the aim of staying well below 2 degrees C, however. Here we show how fairness concerns quantitatively condition the allocation of this global carbon budget across countries. Minimal fairness requirements include securing basic needs, attributing historical re-sponsibility for past emissions, accounting for benefits from past emissions, and not exceeding countries' soci-etally feasible emission reduction rate. The argument in favor of taking into account these fairness concerns reflects a critique of both simple equality-and sovereignty-principled reduction approaches, the former modelled here as the equal-per-capita distribution from now on, the latter as prolonging the inequality of the status-quo levels of emissions into the transformation period (considered a form of "grandfathering "). We find the option most in line with fairness concerns to be a four-fold qualified version of the equal-per-capita approach that in-corporates a limited form of grandfathering.

After having agreed in the European Council of December 2019 on transforming the European Union to climate neutrality by 2050, the next step requires adjusting the 2030 targets on climate and energy accordingly. This Research Brief focuses on the effort sharing (ES) sector, which covers all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that are neither included in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) nor covered under “land use and land use change”1. Starting from the Effort Sharing Decision of 2018, this Brief frames the issue in the broader context of global emission budgets that are compatible with the Paris Agreement climate targets and considers criteria for allocating the respective EU budget among the EU-27. The Research Brief (full version) is available upon request: wegcenter@uni-graz.at

Recent global assessments dealing with extreme event risks linked to geophysical and hydrometeorological variability have emphasized the imperative of disaster risk management as a core element in the public sector and business investment strategies. While a disaster is by definition a devastating shock to any risk bearer or affected system, it can also represent an opportunity in terms of a window for “Building Back Better” (BBB) and thus reducing risk in the longer term. Such strategies are associated with many constraints, of which lack of finance ranks high. This chapter presents a methodology as well as monetary estimates of the costs and benefits of such an approach from a global perspective. The specific question pursued is to examine how governments are fiscally prepared to build back better and provide adequate ex-post support to private sector losses. This is based on a fiscal stress testing methodology, which is extended for a BBB policy and compared to a policy strategy of rebuilding the status quo. The approach computes the return period of fiscal gaps, i.e., insufficient resources to recover from a disaster event and determines annual funding requirements needed for capitalizing a multi-hazard global fund which would absorb these gaps, either for all return periods or certain risk layers. It is found that building back better could considerably reduce future disaster risk, especially for the most at-risk countries. Beyond the quantification, the methodological approach provides a stepping stone for systematic assessments of building back better strategies for reducing long-term risk, which is a precondition for the achievement of many sustainable development goals and is part of two of the four pillars of the Sendai Framework for Risk Reduction.

International trade in wildlife is one contributing factor to zoonotic disease risk. Using descriptive statistics, this paper shows that in the last decades, the volume and pattern of internationally traded wildlife has changed considerably and, with it, the zoonotic pathogens that are traded. In an econometric analysis, we give evidence that an international environmental trade agreement could be used to limit the spread of zoonotic pathogens and disease. More specifically, combining zoonotic disease data with wildlife trade data from the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wildlife and Fauna (CITES), we show that making trade requirements more stringent leads to a decrease in the number of animals traded and, incidentally, also the number of zoonotic diseases that are traded. Our results contribute to the discussion of policy measures that manage the spread of zoonotic diseases.

Background This article presents the main findings from a meta-analysis of how climate change mitigation policy evaluations have been undertaken in the European Union (EU) and six of its Member States: Austria, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece and the United Kingdom. It aims to provide insights into how policy evaluations are carried out and how those practices might be improved. As a first step, this article reviews the literature on the theory and practice of policy evaluations to guide our methodology and further analysis. Results Our sample of 236 policy evaluations in the EU and six Member States covers the period 2010–2016. Compared with the results of a similar meta-analysis carried out covering the period 1998–2007, formal evaluations commissioned by government bodies have been on the rise in 2010–2016. Most evaluations focus on effectiveness and goal achievement and usually forgo a deeper level of reflexivity and/or public participation in the evaluation process. The analysis also reveals the dominance of the energy sector in the sampled evaluations. The article finds that the low number of any policy evaluations in the agriculture, waste or land-use sectors is an area for further investigation. Conclusions The exercise of identifying, coding and categorising these evaluations for 7 years helps to provide insights into the potential use of ex-post evaluations in support of future EU legislative proposals and accompanying impact assessments. Having a good understanding on how a certain policy performed particularly according to evaluation criteria might form the basis for more ambitious climate change mitigation policies in the future. Our analysis further shows that it is crucial and urgent to allocate sufficient resources to the coverage of relatively under-represented sectors, such as land use, land-use change and forestry, and waste.

With the increasing share of renewables in electricity generation in Europe, implied economy-wide macroeconomic feedbacks and spill-over effects to other sectors and actors are of rising importance. We quantify the macroeconomic effects of a large-scale expansion of wind and photovoltaics (PV) in Europe, employing a global multi-regional multi-sectoral computable general equilibrium (CGE) model. We place special emphasis on electricity market integration costs, which have so far been neglected not only in most bottom-up technology comparisons, but also in macroeconomic studies. We find that the societal welfare effects of a large-scale expansion of wind and PV tend to be positive; however, when integration costs are taken into account, positive welfare effects are either much smaller or even become negative, depending very much on regional characteristics, such as the prevailing electricity mix, weighted average costs of capital (WACC) or capacity factors. We also show that macroeconomic feedback effects raise generation costs above what is anticipated from a bottom-up perspective, since the high capital intensities of renewable electricity generation technologies drive up economy-wide capital prices. This may imply that they are no longer competitive when installed at large-scales.

Analyses of climate change vulnerability and risk have been steadily evolving, and have moved from an impact-focused towards a more risk-based approach. In the risk and vulnerability communities, the relevance of resilience and adaptive capacity (AC) are increasingly emphasized. Another emerging analytical framework is the idea of assessing AC and resilience in terms of the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA), which studies welfare as a function of multiple forms of assets (‘capital’) that systems and agents may utilize to both recover as well as increase resilience in the future. We assess a new method for assessing AC at a sectoral level and operationalize AC measurement based on an SLA to assess the ability of the European agricultural sector to adapt to extreme droughts. We create a set of indicators which highlight areas of high or low AC, forecast to estimated times the world will reach 2° of warming using Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) and Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenarios to drive AC indicator projections based on a fixed effects model. We find that based on this approach, Central and Northern Europe rank higher in overall capacity than countries on the periphery, and projections to 2°C do not change results to a large degree. We critically reflect on the use of this approach and suggest possible use cases for results in larger studies of sectoral vulnerability, and highlight key data gaps and the need for a stronger empirical basis for selection of indicators, which constrain our ability to assess AC.

Die Identifikation und insbesondere Visualisierung der Schlusselrisiken des Klimawandels auf Gemeindeebene anhand des Konzeptes der lokalen Grunde zur Besorgnis dient als Kommunikations- und Entscheidungshilfe fur (lokale) Akteurinnen und Akteure im ganzheitlichen klimasensitiven Risikomanagement. Dieses Konzept fullt eine wichtige Lucke in der Entscheidungsfindung und ermoglicht eine gezielte Auswahl aus der Fulle von moglichen Anpassungsmasnahmen und strategien. Es schafft und starkt Bewusstsein und Handlungsverantwortung fur bestehende, entstehende und kunftige Risiken. Durch das Verfahren konnen gangige Praktiken im Umgang mit Risiken uberarbeitet und mogliche kunftige (klimatische sowie soziookonomische) Entwicklungen in die Beurteilung der Risiken sowie in Entwicklungskonzepte der Gemeinden mit einbezogen werden. Die Entscheidungsverantwortlichen werden dadurch unterstutzt, praventiv zu handeln und die fur ihre Gemeinde notwendigen Masnahmen rechtzeitig zu treffen.

Iterative risk management and risk-sensitive public investment planning are increasingly seen as essential elements of natural disaster resilience. This article assesses the disaster risk facing the hazard-prone Southeast Asian country of Cambodia and discusses its fiscal preparedness and need for proactive disaster risk management. The study provides a bottom-up assessment of flood and cyclone risks to public and private buildings including educational structures, health facilities, and housing and estimates the total direct economic damage to range from approximately USD 304 million for a 5-year return period event to USD 2.26 billion for a 1000-year return period event. These estimates were further analyzed using the fiscal risk due to disasters, which indicates that Cambodia will likely face a resource gap whenever a hazard as large as that of a 28-year return period event strikes. Given the frequent occurrence of disasters and rapid accumulation of capital assets taking place, proactive risk reduction is highly advisable. But interviews with national policymakers also revealed that there are a number of barriers to effective risk reduction and management in Cambodia. The general lack of awareness regarding risk-based concepts and the limited availability of local risk information necessitate a continued and sustained effort to build iterative risk management in Cambodia.

Truly understanding climate-related disaster risk, and the management of that risk, can inform effective action on climate adaptation and the loss and damage mechanism, the main vehicle under the UN Climate Convention for dealing with climate-related effects, including residual impacts after adaptation.

Managing disaster risk is increasingly being considered a key line of response in climate adaptation. While funding support for adaptation has been pledged, rationales for support and cost implications are essentially unclear, which may explain why financing is currently only forthcoming at low levels. Various estimates for the costs of adaptation have been suggested, yet the rationale and robustness of the estimates have been difficult to verify. Focusing on weather-related extreme events, we conduct a global assessment of the public finance costs for financially managing extreme event risks. In doing so, we assess countries' fiscal disaster vulnerability, which we operationalize as the public sector's ability to pay for relief to the affected population and support the reconstruction of lost assets and infrastructure. Methods employed include minimum-distance techniques to estimate the tail behaviour of country disaster risks as well as the inclusion of non-linear loss and financing resources relationships. We find that many countries appear fiscal vulnerable and would require assistance from the donor community in order to bolster their fiscal resilience. Our estimates may inform decisions pertaining to a global fund for absorbing different levels of country risks. We find the costs of funds covering different risk layers to be in the lower billions of dollars annually, compared to estimates of global climate adaptation which reach to more than USD 100 billion annually. Our estimates relate to today's climate, and while disaster losses have currently not been robustly linked to climate change, physical science has made a strong case in attributing changes in climate extremes to anthropogenic Climate Change. We suggest that estimates of current weather variability and related risks, although also associated with substantial uncertainty, can be interpreted as a baseline for discussion and any future projections of risks. (c) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.