Search results

This study investigates the impact of the Paris Agreement (and other factors) on carbon information disclosures to the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP).

A sample of South African listed companies was selected and data analysed from 2013 to 2017. A random effect panel data model using SPSS was used to determine whether the Paris Agreement had an effect on carbon information disclosure.

The results indicate that (1) the Paris Agreement, as an example of an intergovernmental coordination initiative, is significant in creating awareness and increasing the carbon disclosures to the CDP. Furthermore, (2) in terms of the other factors examined, providing incentives for managing climate change and assessing climate risks further into the future improves disclosure quality, while no relationship was found between the CDP score and the approval by key management personnel.

This research examines CDP disclosures for an emerging market before and after the signing of the Paris Agreement.

This research shows the importance of supportive government policy. Furthermore, a commitment to climate change disclosure is manageable and achievable and needs to be implemented at the management level.

This paper aims to show why very little progress was made in arresting climate change. Managing climate change is one of the greatest challenges humanity has encountered in the 21st century. Responding to this greatest challenge, the United Nations has organized numerous climate change conferences. Four agreements (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC], Kyoto, Copenhagen and Doha) have emerged in the process of developing a potential international climate change policy but failed to produce any ambitious agreement to arrest climate change.

The pledges made by Conferences of the Parties (COPs) to reduce the greenhouse gases (GHGs) are contextualized with the ever increasing emissions of GHGs by exploring the databases of UNFCCC, International Energy Agency (IEA), Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the Netherlands Energy Assessment Agency (NEAA) for this study.

However, GHGs have continued to rise and no globally binding agreement is seen to be forthcoming. Quantified targets to address the problem have yet to be agreed while major emitters remain free riders. This paper argues that the state-centric negotiating framework and the principles of the climate change negotiations were the main reasons for the inadequate outcomes leading to the continuing rise in emissions.

This is an original research. It has presented the overview of climate change agreements, finds the problems and presents a way forward. The research is useful for governments of the world, climate negotiators, students of climate change, researchers, NGO communities and every single human being who understands that managing climate change is not only complex but also extensive.

The purpose of this paper is to better link the parallel processes yielding international agreements on climate change, disaster risk reduction, and sustainable development.

This paper explores how the Paris Agreement for climate change relates to disaster risk reduction and sustainable development, demonstrating too much separation amongst the topics. A resolution is provided through placing climate change within wider disaster risk reduction and sustainable development contexts.

No reason exists for climate change to be separated from wider disaster risk reduction and sustainable development processes.

Based on the research, a conceptual approach for policy and practice is provided. Due to entrenched territory, the research approach is unlikely to be implemented.

Using a scientific basis to propose an ending for the silos separating international processes for climate change, disaster risk reduction, and sustainable development.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate to what extent the Paris Agreement and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have supported (or could support) the least developed countries (LDCs) particularly for accessing the climate technologies and thereby to meet the objectives of the Paris Agreement.

This study adopted legal dogmatism to evaluate the gradual development of technology transfer issues to support the LDCs under the international climate regime.

This study suggested a few potential measures to facilitate meaningful technology transfer to LDCs – such as clarifying and linking the role of the technology and financial mechanism, a more robust role of capacity building, using the sustainable development mechanism with a technology transfer focus, improving the transparency and reporting mechanism to particularly indicate support regarding technology transfer requested and received by the LDCs linking it with the nationally determined contributions, and adapting a pragmatic approach to intellectual property.

This study is an original contribution as it identified concern over technology transfer under the UNFCCC since 1992 with a focus on the LDCs and indicated required actions that need to be taken to support the LDCs in the context of climate-related technology transfer and beyond.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the legal complications prevail towards the architecture of mutual policy design between trade and climate change regimes. The recent literature on this topic is mainly focused on commons and has significantly ignored the existing regulatory constraints between both the regimes. Therefore, in this study relevant WTO and environmental laws are critically examined in order to bring another side of literally work on trade‐climate policy framework. Moreover, the time factor, role of developing countries and two approaches are also discussed that are important constituents to be considered during ongoing climate change multilateral talks.

This paper has six parts in total. Part one comprises of “Introduction”, part two gives “Overview of relevant WTO and climate change regulations”, part three describes “Antithesis of WTO and climate change rules” and explains the differences that both regimes posses in the basics of their nature, part four enumerates that how to galvanize the anticipated disputes among both the regimes, part five is focused on the participation of developing countries and their possible reservations towards climate policy and, part six gives some concluding remarks.

This study found four major points of caution while architecting climate change policy. First, the climate change policy gives excuse to certain economies to protect their domestic industry, which is supposedly the violation of WTO rules. Second, the disputes arise at WTO platform from the climate friendly trade policies would be a new inconvincible challenge. Third, the GATT article XX (general exceptions) and agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures (ASCM) are still not clearly defined under climate change regime. Fourth, the position of least developed countries (LDCs), there is no action plan as these countries are the most affected due to possible stringent trade‐climate policies.

This research posses potential policy implication for both governments and international organizations, and provides new direction to trade and climate change researchers. It opens the way to critically examine the legal issues addressed in this paper which subsequently help both trade climate change regimes to overcome such regulatory differences with mutual consensus.

As policy implication this study suggests that what has been achieved during last two decades over climate change issue, and how long would it take to achieve the reasonable targets? In‐fact, the past work has succeeded to address the climate change as the global issue and it needs to be solved jointly but there is still a long way to make potential progress in order to architect the comprehensive policy and designing of multilateral agreements. It needs more time to constitute a climate change regime free from individual countries' political and economical interests and consensus amongst all major countries and group.

Most the current literature only focuses common options between trade and climate change policy regimes and significantly ignores the potential legal constraints. In this regards, this study fills existing gap in trade and climate change policy constraints and gives another new direction for policy makers.

Climate change is the global problem that threatens the next generations, and results in serious environmental and socioeconomic issues. Countries have agreed to adopt a new climate agreement in 2015 at the Paris Conference. This chapter analyzes the corporate actions of how companies in Turkey will adapt themselves to COP21 needs, what does the agreement require to do in the Turkey’s companies to do, and determines what objectives are needed of Turkey’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution.

A comprehensive literature research is conducted in order to understand the effects of climate change on companies’ course of actions. The qualitative study is to understand Turkey’s companies’ policies about climate change.

Companies should have capacity to make the planet sustainable and create alternative solutions to social problems by mobilizing resources and making investments. In Turkey, companies have the responsibility to continue its sustainable development process. In many sectors, Turkey has additional policies and strategies about energy, industry, transport, buildings, agriculture, waste, and forestry.

This research is a theoretical study about companies’ policies and strategies to comply with climate change in the case of Turkey. For further studies, researchers can make comparisons between companies’ contributions.

This study may be useful for the board of directors and managers since they should become aware of understanding of the climate change effects. Stakeholders are looking directly at companies how they manage these challenges to use resources. The problem is in the interests of everyone, but companies have major responsibility to do something else. Organizations can have sustainability efforts by understanding the threats and opportunities of climate change.

This study is valuable and attractive to give comparison about practicing strong legal framework and clear rules, long-term approach, connection with sustainable development goals.

This paper brings insights from accounting scholarship to the measurement and reporting challenges of metagovernance approaches to sustainable development. Where scholarship on metagovernance—the combination of market, hierarchical and network governance—proposes deductive approaches to such challenges, we contend that a historically informed “abductive” approach offers valuable insight into the realpolitik of intergovernmental frameworks.

The paper adopts a Foucauldian “archaeological–genealogical” method to investigate the inclusion of climate change as a Sustainable Development Goal (SDG). It analyses more than 100 documents and texts, tracking the statement forms that crystallise prevailing truth claims across the development of climate and SDG metagovernance.

We show how the truth claims now enshrined in the Paris Agreement on Climate Change constrained the conceptualisation and operationalisation of SDG 13: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts. The paper thereby reframes recent measurement and reporting challenges as outcomes of conceptual conflicts between the technicist emphasis of divisions within the United Nations and the truth claims enshrined in intergovernmental agreements.

This paper demonstrates how an archaeological–genealogical approach may start to address the measurement and reporting challenges facing climate and SDG metagovernance. It also highlights that the two degrees target on climate change has a manifest variability of interpretation and shows how this characteristic has become pivotal to operationalising climate metagovernance in a manner that respects the sovereignty of developing nations.

The purpose of the study is to analyze the phenomenon of climate change as it relates to the hospitality and tourism industry in developing countries. This review specifically analyzes how the industry is responding to the threat of climate change, particularly its response to the 2030 Corporate Agenda for Sustainable Development to combat climate change. The study also examines how the industry can subsequently help in eradicating poverty through its adaptive capacity and sustainable development initiatives to mitigate the impacts of climate change. It likewise addresses the challenges faced by the hospitality and tourism industry regarding equity in implementing the agenda for climate change posed by the Paris Climate Change Agreement/COP21.

Literature review was conducted to garner information which was presented from both a narrative and practical perspective.

Climate change is a real phenomenon and has started to impact the hospitality and tourism industry in developing countries. If not mitigated, the industry and pro-poor tourism efforts will be negatively impacted.

The study did not empirically analyze the relationship between climate change and tourism, tourism and poverty, and climate change, tourism, and poverty as well as their relationship to sustainable development.

To inform government and industry players of the causes and impacts of climate change and the adaptation and mitigation initiatives.

This study addresses the phenomenon of climate change exclusively as it relates to the hospitality and tourism industry in developing countries.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the (three) critical issues that will need to be addressed in a post‐2012 (post‐Kyoto) global agreement on climate change, sets out the options and difficulties in relation to them, and outlines a way forward on each.

The paper assesses proposals for national and international mitigation already put forward both by negotiating countries and by academics.

Global mitigation efforts have so far achieved little and negotiations are currently deadlocked. This lack of progress has led to an proliferation of alternative policy proposals for an international agreement, but only those proposals which build on international agreements to date have at the current time any reasonable prospect of guiding global mitigation effort post‐2012. There are three main issues that will need to be addressed within that framework: emission reduction targets for developed countries; the nature and extent of actions to limit emissions growth in developing countries; and the funding of emission reduction efforts in developing countries. Using a number of explicit assumptions, the paper identifies likely ranges for emission reduction targets for developed countries and emission growth limits for developing countries. The best (worst) case involves developed countries as a group reducing 2020 emissions by 20 per cent (10 per cent) over 1990 levels, and developing countries limiting annual average emissions growth between 2012 and 2020 to 1.5 per cent (3.5 per cent) a year. This is estimated to give global emissions in 2020 in the range of 47‐53 Gt CO₂‐e. The bottom end of this range is consistent with the long‐term goal of stabilizing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the range of 550 CO₂‐e ppm, provided there is rapid adjustment post‐2020. Crucial to reaching a deal at the ambitious end of this range will be reform of the clean development mechanism, and a commitment by developed countries to large public funding in support of developing country mitigation.

The paper accepts the current negotiating framework, and provides a systematic and quantified treatment of the critical issues which arise within it.

Climate and environment-related financial risks could significantly and negatively impact the financial sector in future, particularly its financing to those sectors adversely impacted by the climate-related risks, low-carbon policies and the transition from traditional energy sources-based economy to a more sustainable system with alternative energy sources. The participatory countries of the Paris Agreement agreed to align finance flows with a low-emission, low-carbon and climate-resilient growth, in order to facilitate achieving the long-term climate goals. The financial sector, therefore, needs to play a proactive role in aligning financial flows. It is, therefore, of utmost importance to study low-carbon finance and climate-related financial risks. This chapter examine how climate change can affect the financial sector. It discusses the concept, nature, measurement of climate risks and climate-related financial risks and associated prospects and challenges in the assessment and the measurement of these risks. It also presents the green financing initiatives and role of central banks and supervisory authorities and their monetary and financial policies in enhancing green financing and redirecting finance to low-carbon activities. In the financial sector, the insurance industry is highly vulnerable to such risks. The banking sector is yet to witness the serious impact of these risks. With the slowing of global economic growth, appropriate policies are needed to encourage banks to provide increased green finance with an adequate profitability. Studies recommend that climate-related risk has a strong potential impact on banks’ loan default rate as well as on the financial stability, there is hence a need to incorporate climate-related criteria and the systemic risk arising out of climate change into banks’ decision-making process and risk modelling and management. There is a need for developing an appropriate methodology for assessing and reducing these risks. Moreover, observers also anticipate a need for cooperation between banking regulators and banks to develop and adopt best practices in the management of environmental risks. The environment-related risks will call forth a multi-country, or regional, research office to collect and compile the required data and undertake analysis to enhance the banking sectors’ understanding of, and capacity to address, potential systemic environmental risks. What is needed is to test the feasibility of incorporating forward-looking scenarios for assessing potential impacts of providing credit to environmentally unsustainable or sustainable activities on financial stability.