Search

It is widely agreed that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is a useful international instrument that encourages and reinforces the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), and also that it should be further promoted as a way to fill the gap in energy and GHG efficiency between industrialized and developing countries. A number of problematic issues have become apparent, however, during the past two and a half years of experience with the CDM. This paper identifies some of these and provides possible insights into their nature and possible resolution. While some technical aspects such as baseline setting are crucial and are being resolved gradually through accumulated experience, other political aspects such as the utilization of public funding need more discussion (rather than formal negotiations). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United States' new Global Climate Change initiatives, proposed by the Bush Administration on 14 February 2002, reveal the attitude of the U.S. toward future efforts to address climate change. In this paper, the author clarifies this “attitude” by analyzing the content of these new initiatives, and discusses the inititiatives' theoretical consistency, feasibility, and so on. The examination of these initiatives reveals that—value judgements aside—they contain inherent theoretical inconsistencies. A future challenge for the U.S.'s new climate policy will be to make these initiatives effective by ensuring follow-up actions— something that cannot be realized sufficiently by the current scheme. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper assessed the rationality of the "official" reasons why the Bush Administration opposes the Kyoto Protocol and judges the Kyoto Protocol to be "fatally flawed". Most of the reasons why the Bush Administration made this judgment--lack of long-term goals, exclusion of developing countries and lack of linkages between the scientific base and policy--can be dealt with in the process of the development of the Kyoto Protocol much more easily than through the establishment of an alternative from scratch. We find some rationality in the Bush Administration's opposition to the ratification of the Protocol by the United States based on recognition of increases in US greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions above the "payable" level, in addition to security concerns involved in purchasing permits from EIT countries. Other stances of the Bush administration, such as devaluing or neglecting the existing international framework which the international community has achieved through a decade of intense negotiations, e.g. the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, may cause delays in addressing climate change issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]