Explore the vast range of titles available.

With the effects of climate change already upon us, the need to cut global greenhouse gas emissions is nothing less than urgent.It's a daunting challenge, but the technologies and strategies to meet it exist today.A small set of energy policies, designed and implemented well, can put us on the path to a low carbon future.

Existing estimates of the climate mitigation potential from cropland carbon sequestration (C‐sequestration) are limited because they tend to assume constant rates of soil organic carbon change over all available cropland area, use relatively coarse land delineations, and often fail to adequately consider the agronomic and socioeconomic dimensions of agricultural land use. This results in an inflated estimate of the C‐sequestration potential. We address this gap by defining a more appropriate land base for cover cropping in the United States for C‐sequestration purposes: stable croplands in annual production systems that can integrate cover cropping without irrigation. Our baseline estimate of this suitable stable cropland area is 32% of current U.S. cropland extent. Even an alternative, less restrictive definition of stability results in a large reduction in area (44% of current U.S. croplands). Focusing cover crop implementation to this constrained land base would increase durability of associated C‐sequestration and limit soil carbon loss from land conversion to qualify for carbon‐specific incentives. Applying spatially‐variable C‐sequestration rates from the literature to our baseline area yields a technical potential of 19.4 Tg CO2e yr−1 annually, about one‐fifth of previous estimates. We also find the cost of realizing about half (10 Tg CO2e yr−1) of this potential could exceed 100 USD Mg CO2e−1, an order of magnitude higher than previously thought. While our economic analyses suggest that financial incentives are necessary for large‐scale adoption of cover cropping in the U.S., they also imply any C‐sequestration realized under such incentives is likely to be additional. Plain Language Summary As a “Nature‐based Climate Solution” (NCS), the practice of cover cropping has received widespread attention and investment recently. Through cover cropping, croplands may be able to absorb and hold more carbon in soil, drawing down CO2 in the atmosphere (i.e., sequester carbon). However, the sequestration that is feasible, which reflects socioeconomic and land use considerations, remains unquantified. We estimate this feasible potential for carbon sequestration in the U.S. croplands from cover cropping and find it to be a fraction of previous estimates. A large portion of the reduction is due to our use of a more realistic and rigorous definition of the land area suitable for cover cropping for climate mitigation purposes. This land area comprises “croplands remaining croplands” (or stable croplands) that are planted to annual crops, like corn and soybeans, because they can more easily integrate the practice. We exclude irrigated croplands to conserve water resources. At just under 44 million ha, our baseline area estimate is 32% of the current U.S. cropland extent. The rest of the reduction is associated with our use of more conservative rates of increase in soil carbon from cover cropping than earlier studies that are more realistic for assessing soil carbon sequestration potential over large areas. Our economic analyses suggests that without financial incentives, implementing cover cropping could be expensive for most U.S. farmers. This high cost hurdle needs to be evaluated against the cost‐effectiveness of alternatives that compete for the same limited resources for climate mitigation. Key Points For U.S. croplands, the feasible potential of carbon sequestration from cover cropping is a fraction of previous estimates Defining the land base suitable for mitigation practices more realistically and rigorously is critical to estimating the feasible potential Cover cropping, though beneficial for soil health, may not be a low‐cost pathway for climate mitigation at scale in the U.S.

Using woody biomass from public lands could attract private investments, increase carbon dioxide emission reductions from sustainably harvested low-grade wood to mitigate climate change, provide benefits for the environment, and support rural community economies. Available for use are about 210 million oven dry tons (in the western U.S. alone) of small-diameter wood and harvest residues that could be removed through hazard-fuel treatments and used for bioenergy and bioproducts; representing an economic value of approximately USD 5.97 billion (109). Reaching that utilization goal requires an assessment of current U.S. policies, regulations and directives influencing the use of forest biomass and identification of barriers, challenges, and potential opportunities associated with the use of woody biomass from public lands. One objective of this review is to support the implementation of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA-FS) new effort called “Confronting the Wildfire Crisis: A Strategy for Protecting Communities and Improving Resilience in America’s Forests”, but greater coordination of public policies (regulatory legislation, government subsidies, support programs) at different government levels could increase adoption of forest biomass for bioenergy and bioproducts while also promoting different supply chains for long-term biomass supplies and industry investments. Harmonizing the definition of key biomass terms used by different programs that support using forest biomass for bioenergy and other bioproducts, including the Renewable Fuel Standard, may increase forest biomass use from public lands.

Methane is a greenhouse gas that oxidizes to form ground-level ozone, itself a greenhouse gas and a health-harmful air pollutant. Reducing methane emissions will both slow anthropogenic climate change and reduce ozone-related mortality. We estimate the benefits of reducing methane emissions anywhere in the world for ozone-related premature mortality globally and for eight geographic regions. Our methods are consistent with those used by the US Government to estimate the social cost of carbon (SCC). We find that the global short- and long-term premature mortality benefits due to reduced ozone production from methane mitigation are (2011) $790 and $1775 per tonne methane, respectively. These correspond to approximately 70 and 150 % of the valuation of methane’s global climate impacts using the SCC after extrapolating from carbon dioxide to methane using global warming potential estimates. Results for monetized benefits are sensitive to a number of factors, particularly the choice of elasticity to income growth used when calculating the value of a statistical life. The benefits increase for emission years further in the future. Regionally, most of the global mortality benefits accrue in Asia, but 10 % accrue in the United States. This methodology can be used to assess the benefits of methane emission reductions anywhere in the world, including those achieved by national and multinational policies.

Over the past decade, carbon trading has emerged as the industrialized world's primary policy response to global climate change despite considerable controversy. With carbon markets worth $144 billion in 2009, carbon trading represents the largest manifestation of the trend toward market-based environmental governance. In Carbon Coalitions, Jonas Meckling presents the first comprehensive study on the rise of carbon trading and the role business played in making this policy instrument a central pillar of global climate governance.Meckling explains how a transnational coalition of firms and a few market-oriented environmental groups actively promoted international emissions trading as a compromise policy solution in a situation of political stalemate. The coalition sidelined not only environmental groups that favored taxation and command-and-control regulation but also business interests that rejected any emissions controls. Considering the sources of business influence, Meckling emphasizes the importance of political opportunities (policy crises and norms), coalition resources (funding and legitimacy,) and political strategy (mobilizing state allies and multilevel advocacy).Meckling presents three case studies that represent milestones in the rise of carbon trading: the internationalization of emissions trading in the Kyoto Protocol (1989--2000); the creation of the EU Emissions Trading System (1998--2008); and the reemergence of emissions trading on the U.S. policy agenda (2001--2009). These cases and the theoretical framework that Meckling develops for understanding the influence of transnational business coalitions offer critical insights into the role of business in the emergence of market-based global environmental governance.

As the Copenhagen Accord indicates, most of the international community agrees that global mean temperature should not be allowed to rise more than two degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels to avoid unacceptable damages from climate change. The scientific evidence distilled in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and recent reports by the US National Academies shows that this can only be achieved by vast reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. Still, international cooperation on greenhouse gas emissions reductions suffers from incentives to free-ride and to renegotiate agreements in case of noncompliance, and the same is true for other so-called \"public good games.\" Using game theory, we show how one might overcome these problems with a simple dynamic strategy of linear compensation when the parameters of the problem fulfill some general conditions and players can be considered to be sufficiently rational. The proposed strategy redistributes liabilities according to past compliance levels in a proportionate and timely way. It can be used to implement any given allocation of target contributions, and we prove that it has several strong stability properties.

The increasing resilience to climate change in the agricultural sector report presents local-level priorities, informed by stakeholder input, to build agricultural resilience in both countries. The objectives of this study were threefold: (1) to improve the understanding of climate change projections and impacts on rural communities and livelihoods in selected regions of Jordan and Lebanon, specifically the Jordan River Valley and Lebanon's Bekaa Valley; (2) to engage local communities, farmers, local experts, and local and national government representatives in a participatory fashion in helping craft agricultural adaptation options to climate change; and (3) to develop local and regional climate change action plans that formulate recommendations for investment strategies and strategic interventions in local agricultural systems. The climate challenges confronting development in the Middle East are particularly stark. This region, and in particular its rural people, face what might be called a \"triple threat\" from climate change. First, the Middle East is already one of the driest and most water-scarce regions of the world (World Bank 2011a) and faces severe challenges posed by high temperatures and limited water supplies. This report to assist Jordan and Lebanon in understanding the specific challenges and opportunities posed by climate change in the agricultural sector.

Efforts to control atmospheric accumulations of greenhouse gases that threaten to heat up the planet are in their infancy. Although the IMF is not an environmental organization, environmental issues matter for the organization's mission when they have major implications for macroeconomic performance and fiscal policy. Climate change clearly passes both these tests. This volume provides practical guidelines for the design of fiscal policies (carbon taxes and emissions trading systems with allowance auctions) to reduce greenhouse gases. Not only are these instruments potentially the most effective at exploiting emission reduction opportunities in the near and longer term, but they can also generate for many countries a valuable new source of government revenue. The chapters, written by leading experts, explain the case for fiscal policies over other approaches; how these policies can be implemented; reasonable levels for emissions prices; policies for the forest sector; appropriate policy for developing countries; the most promising fiscal instruments for climate finance; and lessons to be drawn from prior policy experience. This is essential reading for policymakers in finance and environment ministries in developed and developing countries alike, and others grappling with balancing environmental and development concerns.

We compare several emissions reduction instruments, including quantity policies with banking and borrowing, price policies, and hybrid policies (safety valve and price collar), using a dynamic model with stochastic baseline emissions. The instruments are compared under the design goal of obtaining the same expected cumulative emissions across all options. Based on simulation analysis with the model parameterized to values relevant to proposed US climate mitigation policies, we find that restrictions on banking and borrowing, including the provision of interest rates on the borrowings, can severely limit the value of the policy, depending on the regulator-chosen allowance issuance path. Although emissions taxes generally provide the lowest expected abatement costs, a cap-and-trade system combined with either a safety valve or a price collar can be designed to provide expected abatement costs near those of a tax, but with lower emissions variance than a tax. Consistently, a price collar is more cost-effective than a safety valve for a given expected cumulative emissions outcome because it encourages inexpensive abatement when abatement costs decline.