Search

This paper considers the rise of the BASIC bloc of emerging economies (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) and its influence in pursuing the adoption of an international agreement on climate change acceptable for all countries. It first questions the mere existence of BASIC as a negotiation group. Indeed, whereas the BASIC bloc is now a reality, BASIC countries do not formally want to be distinguished from the Global South. The study tries to explain this equivocal matter of fact by decoding the perimeter and dynamics of BASIC. It also analyses what would be a balanced outcome of climate change negotiations from BASIC's point of view, through the three challenges any future agreement will have to take up, namely legitimacy, equity and effectiveness. It appears that BASIC may be considered in a transitive phase regarding the climate change issue. BASIC countries seem to want more power but to fear responsibilities. Therefore, they find it much more comfortable to experience their evolving status as parts of a group of other growing actors of international climate negotiations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Integrated assessment models are extensively used in the analysis of climate change mitigation and are informing national decision makers as well as contribute to international scientific assessments. This paper conducts a comprehensive review of techno-economic assumptions in the electricity sector among fifteen different global and national integrated assessment models. Particular focus is given to six major economies in the world: Brazil, China, the EU, India, Japan and the US. The comparison reveals that techno-economic characteristics are quite different across integrated assessment models, both for the base year and future years. It is, however, important to recognize that techno-economic assessments from the literature exhibit an equally large range of parameters as the integrated assessment models reviewed. Beyond numerical differences, the representation of technologies also differs among models, which needs to be taken into account when comparing numerical parameters. While desirable, it seems difficult to fully harmonize techno-economic parameters across a broader range of models due to structural differences in the representation of technology. Therefore, making techno-economic parameters available in the future, together with of the technology representation as well as the exact definitions of the parameters should become the standard approach as it allows an open discussion of appropriate assumptions. Highlights • Comparison of technology representation and techno-economic parameters of 15 IAMs. • Structural differences in representing technology in IAMs are identified. • Methods of projecting techno-economic parameters differ across IAMs. • Strict harmonization of techno-economic parameters across models is difficult. • Recommendation to publish techno-economic parameters and technology representation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using policy cycle model as a heuristic, this article studies Indian, Brazilian, and South African engagement with Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) by (a) comparing NAMA policy process and (b) identifying factors driving or limiting the framework’s domestic application. India largely remained uninterested in NAMAs, Brazil aligned its domestic climate policy and NAMAs, while South Africa had a more nuanced engagement when formulating NAMAs. Four factors influenced these countries’ NAMA engagements: the level and necessity of international support, the availability of domestic policy provisions to tackle climate change, the domestic institutional capacity to coordinate interministerial functioning, and the role of individuals in the institutional apparatus. As an international climate policy framework, studying NAMA engagement provides learnings for nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement for designing the instrument, ensuring clarity on support provisions for ratcheting up ambitions, and enhancing institutional capacity, to expedite transition from policy formulation to implementation and beyond. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]