limits to U.S. participation in international environmental agreements

Why does the United States sign environmental treaties but not ratify them? U.S. presidents have negotiated and signed several environmental treaties that ultimately could not obtain Senate ratification. This paper considers two alternative explanations. First, presidents may face divided government and upcoming elections; elections can increase uncertainty regarding ratification, because they upset majorities and change congressional preferences on issues. Such factors may have caused “involuntary” defection from international environmental cooperation. Second, compensation and compromise on enabling legislation could satisfy enough senators and their constituents to allow the legislation’s passage. Failure to secure ratification may be a result of the president’s overestimating the potential for negotiating a policy package capable of creating sufficient support to obtain Senate ratification. I compare domestic constraints on U.S. participation in three international environmental negotiations – climate change, biodiversity, and chemicals – to assess the alternative explanations. The cases exemplify how domestic institutions affect international environmental cooperation

From taxes to permits? The Norwegian climate policy debate

Taxation as an instrument for environmental policy (green taxes) has been a topic of heated debate in Norway for almost 30 years. The subject of environmental taxes has time after time inflamed both policymakers and scholars alike. The suitability of green taxes as a policy instrument was first discussed in the 1970s. The 1980s introduced the idea that income from green taxes would make reductions in other taxes possible: a green tax reform. In the 1990s, the tax discussion boiled down to whether or not all polluters should face the same carbon tax. Lately, however, the discussion around the Kyoto Protocol has led to increased interest around the alternative of introducing a system of tradable emission quotas. Environmental taxation might thus be a declining policy instrument in Norway. This is contrary to recent developments in several other European countries such as the United Kingdom, Germany, and the Netherlands. This paper explores why the idea of a green tax reform never got off the ground in Norway by providing an overview of Norwegian environmental policy in the period from 1972 to early 2000

Understanding Growing Climate Policy Differences in the EU and the United States: Scientific knowledge meets governance systems

The EU and the United States disagree deeply about the need for more stringent climate policies. Increased climate change concern in 2006-2008 created new opportunities for convergence, but ended in sharp policy differences. We explore two related explanations. First, scientific input was used to frame joint gains among stakeholders differently in the EU and US. Framing was different concerning the consequences of the problem, and particularly in the impact assessments of proposed policy. Second, different governance systems enabled distinctive responses to new opportunities in the EU and United States. Differences in how new policies were initiated and negotiated caused divergent climate policies. The paper tentatively concludes that the relationship and interaction between scientific input and governance systems resulted in distinctively different policy-making processes. This relationship reinforced a cooperative attitude to identify joint gains among EU decision- makers. In contrast, the framing of scientific knowledge reinforced a competitive attitude among US lawmakers, fueled by different stakeholder interests. Scientific knowledge was used and applied to reinforce differences in governance systems. The main lesson from this case is that the framing and application of scientific knowledge in the debate matters, but differences in governance systems are more instrumental for policy outcome

Risk assessment for areas prone to flooding and subsidence:a case study from Bergen, Western Norway

Bergen city centre is prone to both subsidence and flooding. With a predicted increase in precipitation due to climate change, a higher proportion of rainfall becomes surface runoff, which results in increased peak flood discharges. In addition, it has been predicted that sea-level rise and increasing storm surges will result in coastal flooding. In this study, the dual hazards of flooding and subsidence are analysed to exemplify possible risk assessment maps for areas most prone to the combination of both. Risk assessment maps are a support tool to identify areas where mitigation of subsidence and adaptation for surface water management will be most efficient and measures can be implemented. The results show that dual hazard assessment, like that described in this paper, can be a useful tool for decision-makers when prioritizing areas to implement measures such as Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems

Subsidence in urban areas measured by InSAR (Sentinel1) related to flooding

Rapid changes in the urban environment due to growth puts the urban water cycle out of balance, hence, affecting other surface and subsurface processes, such as subsidence and surface water management. Subsidence of the ground is causing risk and hazard, as well as unexpected costs. This newly, November 2018, launched tool InSARNorge is Open Access and part of the Copernicus program. In a recent study (Venvik et al. submitted) datasets from InSAR satellites showing subsidence are combined with data from flood modelling in two different analytical methods using ArcGIS tools to develop a risk assessment map for areas most prone to the combination of both flooding and subsidence. Applying usercentred principles, this work focuses on methods for risk assessment maps as a support tool to locate areas where mitigation of subsidence and adaptation for surface water management will be most efficient and measures can be implemented. The results of the methods for risk assessment maps show that one of the methods give significant results compared to the other method. Such method will be a helpful tool for decision-makers when prioritizing areas for measures such as Sustainable urban Drainage Systems (SuDS). The study is related to the JPI Water funded project INXCES (www.inxces.eu)

Geopolitiske virkninger av lavutslippssamfunnet

I denne rapporten presenteres hovedfunn fra ny forskning som belyser geopolitiske virkninger av overgangen til lavutslippssamfunnet og hvilke konsekvenser denne utviklingen har for Norge. Det vektlegges at en ny global klimaavtale, EUs klima- og energipolitikk, og utviklingen til noen nøkkelaktører, og i regionale og globale energimarkeder vil være sentrale påvirkningsfaktorer for Norges politikkutforming fremover. Etterspørselen etter energi globalt vil øke i takt med befolkningsvekst og velstandsutvikling, samtidig som en omfattende omstilling i den globale energisektoren vil være nødvendig for å kutte klimagassutslipp. Vi finner at en viktig drivkraft i energiomstillingsprosesser er selvforsyning av energi. Store land og energimarkeder legger stadig større vekt på selvforsyning, noe som gir Norge som energiaktør både utfordringer og nye muligheter. Nyvinninger i fornybarteknologi og desentraliserte løsninger vil gjøre nye energiløsninger mulig både i industrialiserte land og i framvoksende økonomier. Dette vil ramme Norge som olje- og gasseksportør. Lave olje- og gasspriser skaper også utfordringer for Norge de nærmeste årene. Men endringene i verdens energimarkeder skaper også nye muligheter for Norge. Ved å være en godt forberedt og omstillingsklar energiaktør som kan levere teknologiske og finansielle løsninger til land som vil øke sitt energibehov samtidig som klimagassutslippene skal ned, kan Norge bidra med løsninger til energiomstillingsprosesser i andre land og gjennom internasjonalt samarbei

Geopolitiske virkninger av lavutslippssamfunnet

I denne rapporten presenteres hovedfunn fra ny forskning som belyser geopolitiske virkninger av overgangen til lavutslippssamfunnet og hvilke konsekvenser denne utviklingen har for Norge. Det vektlegges at en ny global klimaavtale, EUs klima- og energipolitikk, og utviklingen til noen nøkkelaktører, og i regionale og globale energimarkeder vil være sentrale påvirkningsfaktorer for Norges politikkutforming fremover. Etterspørselen etter energi globalt vil øke i takt med befolkningsvekst og velstandsutvikling, samtidig som en omfattende omstilling i den globale energisektoren vil være nødvendig for å kutte klimagassutslipp. Vi finner at en viktig drivkraft i energiomstillingsprosesser er selvforsyning av energi. Store land og energimarkeder legger stadig større vekt på selvforsyning, noe som gir Norge som energiaktør både utfordringer og nye muligheter. Nyvinninger i fornybarteknologi og desentraliserte løsninger vil gjøre nye energiløsninger mulig både i industrialiserte land og i framvoksende økonomier. Dette vil ramme Norge som olje- og gasseksportør. Lave olje- og gasspriser skaper også utfordringer for Norge de nærmeste årene. Men endringene i verdens energimarkeder skaper også nye muligheter for Norge. Ved å være en godt forberedt og omstillingsklar energiaktør som kan levere teknologiske og finansielle løsninger til land som vil øke sitt energibehov samtidig som klimagassutslippene skal ned, kan Norge bidra med løsninger til energiomstillingsprosesser i andre land og gjennom internasjonalt samarbei