Search

This paper provides a detailed analysis of the Tokyo Metropolitan Emissions Trading Scheme (Tokyo ETS), Japan’s first emissions trading scheme with mandatory cap initiated by the government of Tokyo. Unlike trading schemes in other countries, the Tokyo ETS covers indirect emissions from the commercial sector. It is well known that a variety of market barriers impede full realization of energy efficiency opportunities, especially in the commercial sector. Experiences with the Tokyo ETS should therefore provide important lessons for the design of climate change mitigation policies, especially when targeting the commercial sector. The emissions from covered entities have been drastically reduced from those at the scheme’s outset, with an average 14% reduction as of the end of the first commitment period of five years (2010-2014) compared with 2009 levels. This paper shows that the Tokyo ETS alone did not cause these reductions; there were other drivers. Among them, the energy savings triggered by the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011 were crucial. The contribution of credit trading, in contrast, was limited since most of the covered entities reduced emissions by themselves. Through an investigation of official reports, an assessment of the emissions data from the covered entities compared to those of uncovered entities and in-depth interviews with firms covered by the scheme, this paper confirms that the main drivers of emissions reductions by covered entities were separate from the ETS. In fact, the advisory aspect of the scheme seems to be much more important in encouraging energy-saving actions. Key policy insights Most of the observed emission reductions were not caused by the Tokyo ETS alone. An advisory instrument was crucial to the effectiveness of the Tokyo ETS. The experience of the Tokyo ETS suggests that making full use of the advantages of emissions trading is difficult in the case of the commercial sector. Price signals have not provided a stimulus to climate change mitigation actions, which implies that establishing a cap to yield effective carbon prices poses a challenge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most policy instruments to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have focused on producers, and on the energy efficiency of buildings, vehicles and other products. Behavioural changes related to climate change also impact 'in-use' emissions, and potentially, emissions both 'upstream' (including from imported goods) and 'downstream' (eg disposal). Consumption-oriented policies may provide avenues to additional and cost-effective emission reductions, but are less prevalent, in part because of political sensitivities around government efforts to shape individual-level mitigation behaviour. In this paper, we explore policy instruments for encouraging low carbon behaviour in the EU context. Drawing on a literature survey and interviews, as part of the EU Carbon-CAP project, we develop a list of 33 potential instruments, present a systematic methodology for assessing their potential impact and feasibility, and apply this to rank instruments of most interest. Most instruments involve a clear trade-off between their potential impact and feasibility; about half feature in the top three scoring categories, many being voluntary approaches, which may be easier to implement, but with limited or highly uncertain impact. However, we identify a handful of top-scoring instruments that deserve far more policy attention. The complexity of consumer and corporate motivations and behaviours suggests that instruments should be trialled and monitored (e.g. in regions / individual States) before widespread introduction. Most would also be most effective when nested within wider policy packages, to address the varied behavioural motivations and stages of supply chains. Key policy insights Influencing consumer behaviour has been little used in climate policy and is politically sensitive and complex, but can address emissions that have largely escaped influence to date. A few instruments stand out as particularly promising, including: technology lists; supply chain procurement by leading retail companies; a carbon-intensive materials consumption charge; and key infrastructure improvements. A common trade-off between potential impact and likely feasibility points to the importance of government-business collaboration to secure support and impact. More ambitious transformation would require a mix of production and consumption-oriented policy instruments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Cuajimalpa campus of the Autonomous Metropolitan University (UAM) is located in the western region of Mexico City. In 2016, its global average population (students, faculty and staff) was around 2750 people. Campus policies include sustainability as one of its main aims. To evaluate and eventually reduce the environmental impact of the campus, its greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory was assessed and the carbon footprint was calculated, using the GHG protocol (GHGP): Scope 1: direct GHG emissions; Scope 2: indirect GHG emissions; and Scope 3: other indirect GHG emissions, on a calendar year basis. Scope 1 includes mobile and stationary sources and leakage of refrigerants; Scope 2 includes electrical energy usage; Scope 3 includes consumption of paper, food, water, gases, cleaning products, solvents, wastewater treatment, municipal and hazardous wastes and academic travel. In 2016, the campus produced around 3000 tons of CO2 equivalent, with Scope 1, 2 and 3 accounting for 4%, 24% and 72%, respectively. Emissions analysis by activity indicated 51% for commuting; 24% for electricity usage; 14% for academic travel; 11% for other activities. The inventory will aid the establishment of policies for reduction and mitigation of GHG, resulting in environmental and potential economic benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper argues that the most obvious measure to combat greenhouse gas emissions is to remove the vast subsidies that promote higher energy consumption in more than half of the countries in the world, and that this measure should take precedence over many others. The article discusses also why removing energy subsidies is so difficult, and which type of state may succeed. This question is examined with reference to China, India and Russia, all major contributors to global warming. Non-democratic governments and energy importers might be expected to be more likely to halt subsidies. In fact, energy trade imbalances do not seem to significantly affect the capacity to reduce subsidies. The risk of social unrest is a political restraint in all three countries. Perhaps surprisingly, democratic states may be better positioned to remove subsidies than non-democratic ones. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]