Search

An article by William D. Nordhaus (2010) in this journal examined the economic impacts by hurricanes in the USA, and the potential impacts of climate change on future hurricane damages. His analyses show that hurricane damages normalized over time for changes in GDP have increased significantly since the year 1900, at a rate of about 3.1% per year. Moreover, the results of Nordhaus show that hurricane damages increase with the ninth power of maximum wind speed, which is considerably higher than findings of other studies. We perform similar statistical analyses with different data series of hurricane damage, which are more accurately corrected for changes in exposure of assets over time. Our results do not indicate an upward trend in hurricane losses since 1900, which is in line with earlier studies, and indicates that climate change has not increased hurricane damage in the past. Moreover, although the relation between damage and maximum wind speed appears to be considerably higher than assumed by other studies, this elasticity is more likely to be the eighth-power of maximum wind speed. This finding is relevant since it implies that future climate change impacts on hurricane damage may be considerably lower than Nordhaus indicates.

In 1992, the famous European Natura 2000 network, designed in the late 1980s and early 1990s found its way into the EU’s key biodiversity instrument, the Habitats Directive. The word ‘network’ indicates that protected areas are linked to each other and, thus, establish connectivity. It was only in the decade after the adoption of the Habitats Directive, that the term ‘connectivity’ was coined, mainly in connection to climate change. It is generally thought that connecting natural areas allows species and habitats to adapt to the changing climate. One would, therefore, think that a) the EU was well ahead of time when instituting the Natura 2000 network, and b) already has the legal tools available to facilitate or even require connectivity measures to be taken. This contribution will show that this is true only to a certain extent. The main question addressed in this paper is: does the current legislative framework establishing the EU’s Natura 2000 network require Member States to implement connectivity measures? Following steps will be taken to address this question. First, I will very briefly explain what connectivity is and show that there is a growing need for connectivity measures to be taken. Then, I will deal with the Natura 2000 network, both the way it has been put into legal provisions (law in the books) and the way it works in practice (law in action). From this section, it will become apparent that current Natura 2000 law does not provide the robust legal framework that is needed to meet the growing need for connectivity. It shows that the current legislative framework depends much upon voluntary actions by the EU Member States and that more stringent formulations of connectivity requirements in the Habitats Directive are needed to ascertain connectivity conservation throughout Europe. I present several ways forward, drawing on recent case law by the EU Court of Justice.

In 1992, the famous European Natura 2000 network, designed in the late 1980s and early 1990s found its way into the EU’s key biodiversity instrument, the Habitats Directive. The word ‘network’ indicates that protected areas are linked to each other and, thus, establish connectivity. It was only in the decade after the adoption of the Habitats Directive, that the term ‘connectivity’ was coined, mainly in connection to climate change. It is generally thought that connecting natural areas allows species and habitats to adapt to the changing climate. One would, therefore, think that a) the EU was well ahead of time when instituting the Natura 2000 network, and b) already has the legal tools available to facilitate or even require connectivity measures to be taken. This contribution will show that this is true only to a certain extent. The main question addressed in this paper is: does the current legislative framework establishing the EU’s Natura 2000 network require Member States to implement connectivity measures? Following steps will be taken to address this question. First, I will very briefly explain what connectivity is and show that there is a growing need for connectivity measures to be taken. Then, I will deal with the Natura 2000 network, both the way it has been put into legal provisions (law in the books) and the way it works in practice (law in action). From this section, it will become apparent that current Natura 2000 law does not provide the robust legal framework that is needed to meet the growing need for connectivity. It shows that the current legislative framework depends much upon voluntary actions by the EU Member States and that more stringent formulations of connectivity requirements in the Habitats Directive are needed to ascertain connectivity conservation throughout Europe. I present several ways forward, drawing on recent case law by the EU Court of Justice.

In 1992, the famous European Natura 2000 network, designed in the late 1980s and early 1990s found its way into the EU’s key biodiversity instrument, the Habitats Directive. The word ‘network’ indicates that protected areas are linked to each other and, thus, establish connectivity. It was only in the decade after the adoption of the Habitats Directive, that the term ‘connectivity’ was coined, mainly in connection to climate change. It is generally thought that connecting natural areas allows species and habitats to adapt to the changing climate. One would, therefore, think that a) the EU was well ahead of time when instituting the Natura 2000 network, and b) already has the legal tools available to facilitate or even require connectivity measures to be taken. This contribution will show that this is true only to a certain extent. The main question addressed in this paper is: does the current legislative framework establishing the EU’s Natura 2000 network require Member States to implement connectivity measures? Following steps will be taken to address this question. First, I will very briefly explain what connectivity is and show that there is a growing need for connectivity measures to be taken. Then, I will deal with the Natura 2000 network, both the way it has been put into legal provisions (law in the books) and the way it works in practice (law in action). From this section, it will become apparent that current Natura 2000 law does not provide the robust legal framework that is needed to meet the growing need for connectivity. It shows that the current legislative framework depends much upon voluntary actions by the EU Member States and that more stringent formulations of connectivity requirements in the Habitats Directive are needed to ascertain connectivity conservation throughout Europe. I present several ways forward, drawing on recent case law by the EU Court of Justice.

Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published. After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing. [...]

This paper examines a broad range of ethical perspectives and principles relevant to the analysis of issues raised by the science of climate change and explores their implications. A second and companion paper extends this analysis to the contribution of ethics, economics and politics in understanding policy towards climate change. These tasks must start with the science which tells us that this is a problem of risk management on an immense scale. Risks on this scale take us far outside the familiar policy questions and standard, largely marginal, techniques commonly used by economists; this is a subject that requires the full breadth and depth of what economics has to offer and a much more thoughtful view of ethics than economists usually bring to bear. Different philosophical approaches bring different perspectives on understanding and policy, yet they generally point to the case for strong action to manage climate change.