The trends and characteristics of global CH_(4)emissions were analyzed using greenhouse gas data reported by both Annex I and non-Annex I countries under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCC...The trends and characteristics of global CH_(4)emissions were analyzed using greenhouse gas data reported by both Annex I and non-Annex I countries under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC)from 1990 to 2021.The results show the following:(1)In 2021,the cumulative CH_(4)emissions from the 42 nations listed in Annex I of the UNFCCC amounted to 1871521.79 kt CO_(2)eq.The top 10 countries account for 82.0%of the total CH_(4)emissions.(2)Most Annex I countries showed a gradual decline in CH_(4)emissions over the period.In contrast,emissions from non-Annex I countries have increased year by year.Notably,CH_(4)emissions in the United States,the European Union,the Russian Federation,and Ukraine decreased by 14.0%,37.4%,24.0%,and 60.9%,respectively.(3)In 2020,the CH_(4)emissions of the agriculture,energy,waste treatment and LULUCF(land use,land-use change and forestry)sectors in Annex I countries were 72240.43,63863.51,41573.08,and 889019 million tons of CO_(2)eq,accounting for 38.6%,34.1%,22.2%,and 4.8%,respectively.Among non-Annex I countries,the main CH_(4)sources vary by country.In China and Mexico,energy and agriculture were the largest contributors,accounting for 44.8%and 40.2%in China,and 34.4%and 43.3%in Mexico,respectively.In India,Brazil,Nigeria,Argentina,and Vietnam,agriculture dominated,contributing 73.8%,75.8%,59.7%,60.3%,and 58.5%of total emissions,respectively.Indonesia was an exception,with waste treatment being the primary source,accounting for 64.8%of its total CH_(4)emissions.展开更多
As the biggest global emitter of greenhouse gases, China is an extremely important actor in international climate negotiations. During the climate summit in Copenhagen, China was blamed for its uncooperative positions...As the biggest global emitter of greenhouse gases, China is an extremely important actor in international climate negotiations. During the climate summit in Copenhagen, China was blamed for its uncooperative positions particularly from the US side. However, in the Paris climate process, China's participation in international negotiations is more active, and has become a wellrecognized promoter of the Paris Agreement. To understand China's climate policy, the economic and diplomatic strategy should be taken into consideration, especially the changes in the ideas of China's global governance rooted from domestic politics discourse. Moreover, China's symmetrical changes within domestic and international dimension possibly bring out more balanced climate policies and thus the constructive role of China will be the normalcy in the future United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Changenegotiations. However, the negotiations after the US presidential elections may change dramatically and yields great uncertainty for global action. Thus, the vacuum of power may be a possible scenario. Will China reinforce its role toward leadership or go back to group politics? This article examines China's concerns, motives, and possible path to climate leadership in the current debate.展开更多
To address climate change and highlight its global nature,the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC)was adopted for the first time in history within the UN framework on May 9,1992,clearly establ...To address climate change and highlight its global nature,the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC)was adopted for the first time in history within the UN framework on May 9,1992,clearly establishing the obligations of developed countries to take the lead in emission reduction and provide financial,technological,and capacity-building support to developing countries.Particularly since the 2015 Paris Agreement,successive UN climate conferences have placed high emphasis on financial and technological matters,with financial arrangements demonstrating an increasingly specific trend in recent years.The Glasgow Climate Pact adopted in 2021 urges developed country Parties to deliver on their commitment to the goal of providing USD 100 billion to developing country prties,while also urging developed country parties to at least double their provision of climate finance to developing country parties by 2025 compared to 2019 levels.展开更多
Climate change and biodiversity loss are intricately linked,and as the severity of these challenges intensifies,the need for a cohesive international response has become increasingly evident.Since 1992,South Korea has...Climate change and biodiversity loss are intricately linked,and as the severity of these challenges intensifies,the need for a cohesive international response has become increasingly evident.Since 1992,South Korea has developed relevant legal and institutional frameworks;however,its initiatives addressing biodiversity loss have received less recognition and prioritization compared to its efforts concerning climate change.In this context,this study aims to analyze the disparities in South Korea’s policy responses to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC)and the Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD),while proposing an integrated policy direction.To achieve this,the study compares key policies related to both conventions by utilizing the OECD’s Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development(PCSD)indicators and evaluation criteria derived from previous research.Furthermore,the analysis incorporates variables identified in earlier studies,including legal enforceability,economic incentives,financial support,and industry participation,to enhance the depth of the analysis.Additionally,a review of international best practices was conducted to extract actionable insights for policy enhancement.The analysis reveals several challenges in biodiversity policies,including fragmented governance systems,low policy prioritization,weakened policy momentum,imbalanced financial support,and limited corporate awareness.Moreover,difficulties in quantitative evaluation hinder the verification of policy effectiveness due to the complex nature of biodiversity goals.This research aims to assess South Korea’s responsiveness in accordance with the integrated approach promoted by the international community.展开更多
基金supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China[grant number 2022YFC3703003]the Energy Foundation Project[grant number G-2309-35044]the SinoNorwegian Project on Methane from Livestock Production and Waste Management(ChiNorCH4)[grant number CHN-2148,22/0011].
文摘The trends and characteristics of global CH_(4)emissions were analyzed using greenhouse gas data reported by both Annex I and non-Annex I countries under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC)from 1990 to 2021.The results show the following:(1)In 2021,the cumulative CH_(4)emissions from the 42 nations listed in Annex I of the UNFCCC amounted to 1871521.79 kt CO_(2)eq.The top 10 countries account for 82.0%of the total CH_(4)emissions.(2)Most Annex I countries showed a gradual decline in CH_(4)emissions over the period.In contrast,emissions from non-Annex I countries have increased year by year.Notably,CH_(4)emissions in the United States,the European Union,the Russian Federation,and Ukraine decreased by 14.0%,37.4%,24.0%,and 60.9%,respectively.(3)In 2020,the CH_(4)emissions of the agriculture,energy,waste treatment and LULUCF(land use,land-use change and forestry)sectors in Annex I countries were 72240.43,63863.51,41573.08,and 889019 million tons of CO_(2)eq,accounting for 38.6%,34.1%,22.2%,and 4.8%,respectively.Among non-Annex I countries,the main CH_(4)sources vary by country.In China and Mexico,energy and agriculture were the largest contributors,accounting for 44.8%and 40.2%in China,and 34.4%and 43.3%in Mexico,respectively.In India,Brazil,Nigeria,Argentina,and Vietnam,agriculture dominated,contributing 73.8%,75.8%,59.7%,60.3%,and 58.5%of total emissions,respectively.Indonesia was an exception,with waste treatment being the primary source,accounting for 64.8%of its total CH_(4)emissions.
文摘As the biggest global emitter of greenhouse gases, China is an extremely important actor in international climate negotiations. During the climate summit in Copenhagen, China was blamed for its uncooperative positions particularly from the US side. However, in the Paris climate process, China's participation in international negotiations is more active, and has become a wellrecognized promoter of the Paris Agreement. To understand China's climate policy, the economic and diplomatic strategy should be taken into consideration, especially the changes in the ideas of China's global governance rooted from domestic politics discourse. Moreover, China's symmetrical changes within domestic and international dimension possibly bring out more balanced climate policies and thus the constructive role of China will be the normalcy in the future United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Changenegotiations. However, the negotiations after the US presidential elections may change dramatically and yields great uncertainty for global action. Thus, the vacuum of power may be a possible scenario. Will China reinforce its role toward leadership or go back to group politics? This article examines China's concerns, motives, and possible path to climate leadership in the current debate.
文摘To address climate change and highlight its global nature,the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC)was adopted for the first time in history within the UN framework on May 9,1992,clearly establishing the obligations of developed countries to take the lead in emission reduction and provide financial,technological,and capacity-building support to developing countries.Particularly since the 2015 Paris Agreement,successive UN climate conferences have placed high emphasis on financial and technological matters,with financial arrangements demonstrating an increasingly specific trend in recent years.The Glasgow Climate Pact adopted in 2021 urges developed country Parties to deliver on their commitment to the goal of providing USD 100 billion to developing country prties,while also urging developed country parties to at least double their provision of climate finance to developing country parties by 2025 compared to 2019 levels.
基金supported by the Carbon Neutrality,a specialized program of the Graduate School through the Korea Environmental Industry&Technology Institute(KEITI)funded by Ministriy of Environment(MOE,Korea).
文摘Climate change and biodiversity loss are intricately linked,and as the severity of these challenges intensifies,the need for a cohesive international response has become increasingly evident.Since 1992,South Korea has developed relevant legal and institutional frameworks;however,its initiatives addressing biodiversity loss have received less recognition and prioritization compared to its efforts concerning climate change.In this context,this study aims to analyze the disparities in South Korea’s policy responses to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC)and the Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD),while proposing an integrated policy direction.To achieve this,the study compares key policies related to both conventions by utilizing the OECD’s Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development(PCSD)indicators and evaluation criteria derived from previous research.Furthermore,the analysis incorporates variables identified in earlier studies,including legal enforceability,economic incentives,financial support,and industry participation,to enhance the depth of the analysis.Additionally,a review of international best practices was conducted to extract actionable insights for policy enhancement.The analysis reveals several challenges in biodiversity policies,including fragmented governance systems,low policy prioritization,weakened policy momentum,imbalanced financial support,and limited corporate awareness.Moreover,difficulties in quantitative evaluation hinder the verification of policy effectiveness due to the complex nature of biodiversity goals.This research aims to assess South Korea’s responsiveness in accordance with the integrated approach promoted by the international community.
