Search results

The purpose of this paper is to design several methods for enforcing developed countries’ responsibilities under the Green Climate Fund (GCF). The GCF has been one of the core subjects of the world climate summits held under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. However, the development of the GCF has not progressed smoothly, and many concerns remain unresolved.

This paper illustrates three approaches for financing the GCF that vary in terms of the relative weights accorded to environmental responsibility and economic capacity. These three methods include the historical responsibility (HR) principle, the ability to pay (AP) principle and the preference score compromises (PSC) approach (which is a combination of the HR and the AP principles).

The empirical analysis demonstrates that the USA is the largest contributor to the GCF under the HR principle due to the volume of its historical emissions, whereas the European Union bears the greatest financial responsibility under the AP principle, based on its gross domestic product. Under the PSC approach, the European Union and the USA each undertakes a financial burden that approximates 40 per cent of the total financing for the GCF. These nations are followed by Japan, which has a share of almost 9 per cent.

This study is the first attempt to introduce the PSC concept into discussions regarding GCF financing. A scheme of burden sharing that combines environmental responsibility and economic capacity factors is developed and introduced. The respective weights assigned to the two factors are determined based on the Borda rule in voting theory, which avoids the arbitrary allocation of weights between the HR and the AP. These findings will be useful for mobilising the GCF in the Post-Kyoto era.

International climate politics are gradually changing in terms of new and ground-breaking policies and decision-making spearheaded by national governments. The growing global demand to combat climate change reflects the current challenges the world is facing. India’s negotiations at United Nations Conference on Climate Change are based on “equity,” “historical responsibility” and the “polluter pays” agenda, until a shift in the voluntary reduction of carbon emissions takes place. The purpose of this study is to understand why India, a “deal breaker”, is seen as a “deal maker” in climate governance?

For a state like India, domestic preferences are equally important in introducing climate policies alongside its concerns over poverty reduction and economic development, which also stand with its sustainable development goals. This paper explains India’s decision-making using a two-level approach focusing on “domestic preferences.” This rationale is based on India’s historical background as well as new upcoming challenges.

This paper shows that India has both the domestic needs and long-term benefits of combating climate change to cut carbon emissions, which gives the responsibility primarily to domestic audiences and international societies.

This paper uses an international political lens to critically analyze India’s climate positions and politics from both domestic and international levels, demonstrating the importance of considering both short- and long-term goals. The outcome benefits not only the policymakers in India but also stakeholders in the Asia-Pacific and beyond.

This paper aims to use the results of a synthesis of six social science fellowships to explore how alternative framings of the climate justice debate can support fairer climate policies.

The original fellowships drew on sociology, economics, geography, psychology and international relations. Cross-cutting themes of rights, risks and responsibilities were identified following a series of workshops. Results of these workshops were discussed in a number of policy fora. Analysis of the feedback from that fora is used to propose the case for a rights, risks and responsibilities approach to building a more accessible climate justice debate.

Existing climate policy unjustly displaces a) responsibility for emission reductions, b) risks from climate impacts and c) loss of rights. Foundational questions of acceptable risk have been ignored and a just climate policy requires procedurally just ways of revisiting this first-order question.

The contribution a rights, risks and responsibilities framework can bring to a process of educating for climate stewardship is at this stage theoretical. It is only through trialling a rights, risks and responsibilities approach to climate justice debates with the relevant stakeholders that its true potential can be assessed.

Policy actors expressed strong resistance to the idea of overhauling current decision-making processes and policy frameworks. However, moving forward from this point with a more nuanced and tactical understanding of the dialectical relationship between rights, risks and responsibilities has the potential to improve those processes.

Educating for climate stewardship will be more effective if it adopts an approach which seeks a co-production of knowledge. Beginning with the foundational question of what counts as an acceptable level of climate risk offers an inclusive entry point into the debate.

Reveals limits to public engagement with climate policy generated by a ‘justice’ framing.

This study investigates the association between debt overhang and carbon emissions (both direct and indirect emissions) using a sample of US publicly listed firms.

The study applies generalized least squares (GLS) regression analyses to a sample of 2,043 US firm-year observations over a period of 14 years from 2007 to 2020. The methods include contemporaneous effect, lagged effect, alternative measures of carbon emissions and debt overhang, intensive versus non-intensive analysis, channel analysis, firm fixed effects, change analysis, controlling for credit rating analysis, propensity score matching approach, instrumental variable analysis with industry and year fixed effect.

This study's findings reveal that the debt overhang problem increases carbon emissions. This finding holds when the authors use alternative measures of carbon emissions and debt overhang. The authors find that carbon abatement investment is a channel that is negatively impacted by debt overhang, which in turn increases carbon emissions. This study's results are robust for several endogeneity tests, including firm fixed effects, change analysis, propensity score matching approach and two-stage least squares (2SLS) instrumental variable analysis.

The outcome of this research has policy implications for several stakeholders, including investors, firms, market participants and regulators. This study's findings offer insights for investors and firms, helping them allocate resources effectively and make financing decisions aimed at reducing carbon emissions. Regulators and policymakers can also use the findings to formulate policies that promote alternative sustainable finance practices.

The outcome of this research is likely to help firms develop their understanding of the debt overhang problem and undertake strategies that yield a significant amount of funding to invest in reducing carbon emissions.

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.

In the context of the negotiations for apportionment of emission reduction post‐Kyoto regime, issues of equity and fairness have emerged. The purpose of this paper is to generate a model for equitable emission reduction apportionment.

The mathematical model has been designed utilizing mitigation capacity (based on gross domestic product (GDP)) and cumulative excess emissions as the criteria for apportionment. Quantitative results have been arrived at, using cumulative γ and parabolic mitigation emission reduction trajectories to demonstrate the impact on stakeholders.

The apportionment outcomes are independent of the specific trajectory fine‐tuned in the feasibility region. Since the apportionment takes into account entitlements and the mitigation capacity, Africa and India have negligible reduction targets in tune with the development goals in these economies. Substantial reduction commitments would fall on the USA and the EU countries. China gets a moderate target due to higher emissions and GDP.

The approach is in consonance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibility enunciated in the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. The method can easily incorporate emissions trading. The issue of population as a driving factor of emissions has been partially accounted for by considering the entire national GDP as an emission reduction responsibility factor, without considering population based GDP entitlements.

The generalized framework can be extended to situations involving responsibility apportionment in public policies dealing with externalities. The framework is original and will be useful to policymakers and other stakeholders dealing with climate change, as well as researchers looking at externalities of a global or national dimension.

This study aims to explore China’s carbon accounting policies and practices to enhance its carbon accounting and trading practices and achieve carbon neutrality.

This study adopts a phenomenological methodology to explore carbon accounting by setting the scope of the phenomenon, establishing research methods, conducting interviews with 30 participants from 14 emitting entities and four accounting firms and establishing methods for data analysis. Five themes were identified using a five-step coding method.

The results show no uniformity in the accounting treatment of carbon trading; however, common characteristics exist, and they have generally adopted simplified and conservative accounting methods under China’s emission trading scheme. Their common characteristics are that the granted allowances are not recognised as assets by most emitting entities, emissions allowance assets are measured using the historical cost method, most emitting entities only conduct accounting when there are actual cash flows or outflows with regard to carbon emissions allowance trading, and only a few emitting entities disclose carbon trading information in their financial statements or corporate social responsibility reports.

This study highlights accountants’ crucial role in carbon activities by guiding emitting entities’ low-carbon initiatives and culture and transforming managers’ mindsets. It also introduces the China Accounting Standards Committee-based accounting methods for allowances and obligations, aiding carbon disclosure quality and sustainability. These findings also inform the carbon accounting standards that may enhance corporate accountability and address climate change.