Search

Copyright of OECD Environment Working Papers is the property of Organisation for Economic Cooperation & Development and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of OECD Environment Working Papers is the property of Organisation for Economic Cooperation & Development and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of OECD Statistics Working Papers is the property of Organisation for Economic Cooperation & Development and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of OECD Environment Working Papers is the property of Organisation for Economic Cooperation & Development and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This policy paper analyses the role of Korean rural regions in the country's transition to carbon neutrality by 2050, drawing on a conference organised by the OECD in collaboration with the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport (MOLIT) of Korea. The report outlines the emissions profile of Korea's rural regions, compares them with other OECD countries and takes a deep dive on the three most emitting sectors: power generation, manufacturing, and transport. The paper then describes Korea's action plan to reach carbon neutrality. It discusses the just transition challenges in rural regions, highlighting employment risks and opportunities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of OECD Environment Working Papers is the property of Organisation for Economic Cooperation & Development and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of OECD Environment Working Papers is the property of Organisation for Economic Cooperation & Development and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of OECD Environment Working Papers is the property of Organisation for Economic Cooperation & Development and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of OECD Environment Working Papers is the property of Organisation for Economic Cooperation & Development and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article discusses the pros and cons of different sustainable wine packaging formats. It highlights the environmental impact of glass production, which accounts for a significant portion of greenhouse gas emissions in the wine industry. The article explores alternatives to glass bottles, such as lightweight glass, plastic bottles, paper-based bottles, and cans. Each option has its advantages and disadvantages, including considerations of carbon footprint, aesthetics, and consumer perception. The article also mentions the use of kegs for wine on tap as a sustainable option. Overall, the article provides valuable insights into the various packaging options available for sustainable wine production. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of OECD Environment Working Papers is the property of Organisation for Economic Cooperation & Development and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article discusses proposed changes to the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTI) rules regarding Scope 3 emissions and carbon credits. The SBTI plans to allow companies to use carbon credits to offset emissions from their supply chains, which has been met with controversy from climate charity WWE, retailer H&M Group, and even SBTI staff. Critics argue that allowing companies to offset Scope 3 emissions with carbon credits could undermine efforts to address the root causes of climate change. The SBTI plans to publish a discussion paper on the proposed changes and welcomes feedback from stakeholders. [Extracted from the article]

Diageo, the owner of brands like Guinness and Johnnie Walker, is driving its innovation strategies through sustainability, digital technology, "neo-hedonism," and moderation and wellness trends. The company has implemented initiatives such as a paper-packaging trial for its Baileys liqueur and a global pilot with Ecospirits for reusable packaging. Diageo is also investing in non-alcoholic products and using artificial intelligence to identify consumer trends and personalize drink choices. The company aims to achieve distinctive growth through its innovation efforts while staying true to its brands and differentiating its products. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses a research paper which seeks to determine how carbon markets impact cities, and what changes can be made in existing policies as of 2010 in light of such findings. It states that cities contain most of the world's population, hence their energy consumption produces over 70% of the world's green gas emissions. This figure is expected to rise by 76% by 2030. It reports that this market remains under used, however, and presents data and charts supporting such.

This paper describes a carbon tax swap that is both revenue and distributionally neutral. The tax swap would levy a tax on greenhouse gas emissions. The revenue would be used to fund a reduction in the income tax, tied to earned income. Specifically, the proposal calls for a tax on greenhouse gas emissions at an initial rate of $15 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent and gradually increasing over time. A refundable tax credit would be offered for sequestered greenhouse gases and other approved sequestration activities. In addition, to offset the new carbon tax, the proposal would implement an environmental tax credit in the personal income tax equal to the employer and employee payroll taxes on initial earnings up to a limit. This paper begins with a discussion of the problem of greenhouse gas emissions and provides a rationale for setting a price on carbon emissions. It then provides a distributional analysis of the proposal described above. Following this analysis, it makes a case for why carbon pricing through a tax should be considered a viable alternative to carbon pricing through a cap-and-trade system. It concludes with a response to various objections made to carbon pricing in general and a carbon tax in particular. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Green New Deal is best understood as an ambitious mobilization of the economic and environmental resources of the country to achieve, within a period of ten years, the twin targets of a cleaner economy with net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and a more equal and fair society where workers can get decent paying jobs with benefits, healthcare, housing and economic security. The challenge with the Green New Deal is to combine these two goals and address the question of financing both in a practical as well as an effective manner. As I explain in this paper, one such solution could be a carbon tax. A well-designed carbon tax could raise over a $100 billion in revenues on an annual basis, which could then be used to achieve other social and economic policy goals. Keywords: Green New Deal, Carbon Tax, EITC, CTC, I. INTRODUCTION The Green New Deal is best understood as an ambitious mobilization of the economic and environmental resources of the country to achieve- within a period of ten years-the [...]

Copyright of OECD Environment Working Papers is the property of Organisation for Economic Cooperation & Development and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article discusses the challenges facing urban authorities in mitigating green house gas emissions as of 2010. It states that cities house about 50% of the world's population who consume 67% of the world's energy, a figure expected to reach 60% with 71% consumption by 2030, resulting in an increase in carbon products. It states that government and city authorities may lack the resources to mitigate such output, and presents suggestions on profiting through carbon trading practices.

The article discusses the growing trend of using aluminium packaging in the beverage industry as a more sustainable alternative to plastic and glass. The use of aluminium bottles can reduce carbon emissions and is lighter than glass, making it more appealing to consumers. However, there are concerns about the recycled content of aluminium bottles and the potential for greenwashing. Transparency and accurate labeling of recycled content are important for consumers to make informed choices. The article emphasizes the need for more research and education on the environmental benefits of different packaging materials. [Extracted from the article]

Three-quarters of all Americans recycle at home, making recycling one of the nation's most popular environmental activities. Skeptics argue that recycling does little to help the environment and often costs more than burying waste in landfills, but rising energy prices and concerns about climate change are strengthening the supporters' case. Making new goods from scrap metal, glass or paper uses less energy and generates fewer greenhouse gases than extracting and processing virgin materials. Today the U.S. recycles more than 30 percent of its municipal solid waste, and advocates say that figure could be much higher. Diverting more waste from landfills, however, will involve finding ways to handle new materials such as food scraps. Meanwhile, a growing stream of junked computers, televisions and other electronic trash -- much of it containing toxic materials -- is forcing manufacturers to take responsibility for disposing of their products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Union's (EU's) Emissions Trading System (ETS) is a cornerstone of the EU's efforts to meet its obligation under the Kyoto Protocol. It covers more than 11,500 energy intensive facilities across the 25 EU member countries, including oil refineries, powerplants over 20 megawatts (MW) in capacity, coke ovens, and iron and steel plants, along with cement, glass, lime, brick, ceramics, and pulp and paper installations. Covered entities emit about 45% of the EU's carbon dioxide emissions. The trading program does not cover emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases, which account for about 20% of the EU's total greenhouse gas emissions. The first trading period began January 1, 2005. A second trading period is scheduled to begin in 2008, with a third one planned for 2013. In deciding on its trading program, the European Commission (EC) adopted a "learning-by-doing" approach to prepare the EU for the Kyoto Protocol's emission limitations. The EU does not have major experience with emissions trading, and the EC felt that an initial program beginning in 2005 would give the EU practical familiarity in operating such a system. At first glance, it would appear that the EU may have little difficulty meeting its Kyoto Protocol requirements during the second trading period. The anticipated deficit between the second trading period for the original 15 Member States can be covered by trading with the 10 newer Member States that anticipate a surplus. Also, credits are likely to be available through Joint Implementation (JI) and Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects sanctioned under the Protocol. However, there are other considerations. The availability of surplus credits created via JI and CDM is restricted by the EC requirement that such credits be "supplemental" to a country's domestic efforts. Each country is to spell out what "supplemental" means in its National Allocation Plans (NAPs) for the second trading period. Individual countries are likely to define that term differently -- restricting allowance trades and purchases in some countries. Another consideration is the overall commitment of the Kyoto Protocol. As noted earlier, the ETS covers only a percentage of the overall greenhouse gas emissions in the various Member States of the EU. Some sectors not covered by the ETS may grow faster than sectors covered by it, creating difficulties for compliance. In particular, the transportation area is already a source of concern. A final consideration for the ETS is its suitability for directing long-term investment toward a low-carbon future -- the ultimate goal of any climate change program. It is too early to tell whether the ETS's market signal and individual countries' NAPs will move investment in the appropriate direction. The early signs are not particularly encouraging, with the 2005-2008 NAPs producing an overallocation of allowances and one major Member State (Germany) attempting to direct its second NAP toward carbon-intensive, coal-fired electric-generating facilities rather than low-carbon alternatives. Reluctance by countries to redirect their NAPs and an inconsistent price signal from the ETS make the long-term effect of the ETS uncertain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

References for the articles published in the October 1, 2013 issue of "OECD Environment Working Papers” are presented.

MAY 2019 Executive Summary The Alliance for Market Solutions (AMS) has proposed a tax on 'carbon' (emissions of greenhouse gases, or GHG) as a 'market-oriented solution to one of America's [...]

Biopower-a form of renewable energy-is the generation of electric power from biomass feedstocks. Biopower, which comprised about 1% of electricity generation in 2008, may reduce greenhouse gas emissions, provide energy security, and promote economic development. A large range of feedstocks can be used, from woody and herbaceous biomass to agricultural residues. Each feedstock has technical and economic advantages and challenges compared to fossil fuels. Unlike wind or solar energy, a biopower plant is considered to be a baseload power source because some biomass feedstocks can be used for continuous power production. However, ensuring a sustainable supply of biomass feedstocks is a major challenge. Although there are multiple biopower technologies, few of them except combustion have been deployed at commercial scale nationwide. Federal policymakers are supporting biopower through feedstock supply analysis and biopower technology assessments. However, there is limited comprehensive data about the type and amount of biomass feedstock available to meet U.S. biopower needs at a national level. If the use of dedicated biomass feedstocks to generate biopower were to develop into a sizeable industry, concerns would likely include the effect of the industry on land use (i.e., how much land would it take to grow the crops needed to fuel or co-fuel power plants) and the effect on the broader economy, including farm income and food prices. To date, these have not been issues: most existing biomass feedstocks have been waste products generated by the forest products industry or by farms, or municipal solid waste for which combustion served as both a disposal method and a source of energy. Growing crops for use as a power source would be different from using waste. Under generally accepted assumptions regarding crop yields and energy content, approximately 31 million acres- roughly the amount of land in farms in Iowa-would be needed to supply enough biomass feedstock to satisfy 6% of total 2008 U.S. electricity retail sales. When added to the amount of land needed to meet the requirements of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), a federally mandated transportation fuel requirement, the potential impacts could be significant: the RFS already consumes 35% of the nation's corn crop, and its requirements will triple between 2010 and 2022 (although much of this fuel will come from feedstocks other than corn). Beyond land use and economic impacts, others are concerned that the use of biomass feedstocks to generate biopower, particularly through combustion, could add to greenhouse gas (GHG) emission levels and exacerbate climate change concerns. They fear that certain areas may be unsustainably harvested to meet biomass feedstock demand, or that less biomass may be left for other purposes (e.g., wood and paper products). The concerns exist partly because biomass used for biopower does not face the same constraints as biomass used for liquid transportation fuels under the RFS. In addition, the idea that biomass combustion is carbon-neutral is under scrutiny. The Environmental Protection Agency has not exempted biomass combustion emissions from the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule. The rule sets thresholds for GHG emissions that define when permits are required for new and existing industrial facilities. It is unclear what the rule would mean for biomass combustion plants, since determinations of the best available control technologies (BACT)-a pollution control standard mandated by the Clean Air Act-will be provided in another rulemaking. Those who consider biomass combustion emissions to be biogenic (produced by living organisms), and thus carbonneutral over time, argue that these emissions should be exempted from the rule. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A number of congressional proposals to advance programs that reduce greenhouse gases have been introduced in the 110th Congress. Proposals receiving particular attention would create market-based greenhouse gas reduction programs along the lines of the trading provisions of the current acid rain reduction program established by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. This paper presents a side-by- side comparison of the major provisions of those bills and includes a glossary of common terms. Although the purpose of these bills is to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs), the specifics of each differ greatly. Five bills (S. 280, S. 309, S. 485, H.R. 620 and H.R. 1590) cap greenhouse gas emission from covered entities at 1990 levels in the year 2020. However, S. 317 places its first emissions cap at 2001 levels in 2015 while S. 1766 targets reductions at 2006 levels in 2020. Likewise, five bills (S. 280, S. 317, S. 485, H.R. 620, and H.R. 1590 would establish cap-and-trade systems to implement their emission caps. In contrast, S. 1766 provides for two compliance systems - a cap-and-trade program and an alternative safety valve payment - and allows the covered entities to choose one or employ a combination of both. Finally, S. 309 provides discretionary authority to EPA to establish a cap-and-trade program to implement its emission cap. The differences continue with respect to entities covered under the programs. Three bills (S. 309, S. 485, H.R. 1590) provide discretionary authority to EPA to determine covered entities by applying cost-effective criteria to reduction options. In contrast, S. 317's emission cap is imposed solely on the electric generating sector. The other three bills (S. 280, S. 1766, H.R. 620) covered most economic sectors but not all (e.g., the agricultural sector). Thus, the overall reductions achieved by bills depends partly on the breadth of entities covered. Beyond the basics of these bills, each contain other important provisions. For example, S. 280 contains extensive provisions creating a new innovation infrastructure, while S. 1766 has several provisions to encourage foreign countries to undertake comparable control actions and potential consequences if they don't. Other provisions include mandatory greenhouse gas standards for vehicles (S. 309, S. 485, H.R. 1590), and a renewable portfolio standard for the electric generating sector (S. 309, S. 485, H.R. 1590). All bills contain some provisions for the periodic review of the program's adequacy in addressing climate change. This comparison should be considered a guide to the basic provisions contained in each bill. It is not a substitute for careful examination of each bill's language and provisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A number of congressional proposals to advance programs that reduce greenhouse gases have been introduced in the 110th Congress. Proposals receiving particular attention would create market-based greenhouse gas reduction programs along the lines of the trading provisions of the current acid rain reduction program established by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. This paper presents a side-byside comparison of the major provisions of those bills and includes a glossary of common terms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The diminishment of Arctic sea ice has led to increased human activities in the Arctic, and has heightened interest in, and concerns about, the region's future. The United States, by virtue of Alaska, is an Arctic country and has substantial interests in the region. The seven other Arctic states are Russia, Canada, Iceland, Denmark (by virtue of Greenland), Norway, Sweden, and Finland. The Arctic Research and Policy Act (ARPA) of 1984 (Title I of P.L. 98-373 of July 31, 1984) "provide[s] for a comprehensive national policy dealing with national research needs and objectives in the Arctic." The National Science Foundation (NSF) is the lead federal agency for implementing Arctic research policy. The Arctic Council, created in 1996, is the leading international forum for addressing issues relating to the Arctic. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) sets forth a comprehensive regime of law and order in the world's oceans, including the Arctic Ocean. The United States is not a party to UNCLOS. An array of climate changes in the Arctic is now documented by observing systems, with more expected with future greenhouse gas-driven climate change. Observed physical changes in the Arctic include warming ocean, soil, and air temperatures; melting permafrost; shifting vegetation and animal abundances; and altered characteristics of Arctic cyclones. A monitoring report of the Arctic Council concluded in 2019 that "the Arctic biophysical system is now clearly trending away from its previous state [in the 20th century] and into a period of unprecedented change, with implications not only within but also beyond the Arctic." Following the end of the Cold War, the Arctic states sought to maintain the Arctic as a region of cooperation, low tension, peaceful resolution of disputes, and respect for international law. Over the past 10 to 15 years, the emergence of great power competition between the United States, Russia, and China has introduced elements of competition and tension into the Arctic's geopolitical environment. Russia's war in Ukraine beginning on February 24, 2022, has further affected the region's geopolitical environment by prompting the seven Arctic states other than Russia to suspend most forms of Arctic cooperation with Russia, by prompting Finland and Sweden to apply for NATO membership, and in other ways. The Department of Defense (DOD) and the Coast Guard are devoting increased attention to the Arctic in their planning, budgeting, and operations. Whether DOD and the Coast Guard are taking sufficient actions for defending U.S. interests in the region is a topic of congressional oversight. The Coast Guard has two operational polar icebreakers and through FY2023 has received funding for procuring two of at least three planned new heavy polar icebreakers. The diminishment of Arctic ice could lead in coming years to increased commercial shipping on two trans-Arctic sea routes-the Northern Sea Route close to Russia, and the Northwest Passage close to Alaska and through the Canadian archipelago-though the rate of increase in the use of these routes might not be as great as sometimes anticipated in press accounts. International guidelines for ships operating in Arctic waters have been updated. Changes to the Arctic brought about by warming temperatures will likely allow more exploration for oil, gas, and minerals. Warming that causes permafrost to melt could pose challenges to onshore exploration activities. Increased oil and gas exploration and tourism (cruise ships) in the Arctic increase the risk of pollution in the region. Cleaning up oil spills in ice-covered waters will be more difficult than in other areas, primarily because effective strategies for cleaning up oil spills in ice-covered waters have yet to be developed. Large commercial fisheries exist in the Arctic. The United States is working with other countries regarding the management of Arctic fish stocks. Changes in the Arctic could result in migration of fish stocks to new waters, and could affect protected species. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Archroma, a global provider of specialty chemicals, has won awards in the Innovation and Social categories at the 2024 Just Style Excellence Awards. The Innovation award recognizes Archroma's groundbreaking AVICUERO® and SUPER SYSTEMS+ technologies, which address environmental issues in the leather and textile industries. AVICUERO® offers a chrome and metal-free tanning method that reduces CO2 emissions and energy consumption, while SUPER SYSTEMS+ provides end-to-end solutions for sustainable textile manufacturing. Archroma is also recognized for its community engagement initiatives, including the establishment of an Anganwadi Centre and support for local farmers, rural women, and students. [Extracted from the article]

The UK government is aiming to establish a standardized approach to eco-labels on food and drink products in order to prevent greenwashing. The government's Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs wants to bring consistency to the various methodologies used for voluntary eco-labels. The report highlights a lack of consistency in current eco-labels, which can lead to false or misleading environmental claims and confusion. The preferred method for eco-labels, according to the Food Data Transparency Partnership, is a lifecycle assessment approach that quantifies the environmental impact throughout a product's life cycle. The partnership seeks a consistent accounting standard to enable comparable product footprints. [Extracted from the article]