Regaining momentum for international climate policy beyond Copenhagen

The 'Copenhagen Accord' fails to deliver the political framework for a fair, ambitious and legally-binding international climate agreement beyond 2012. The current climate policy regime dynamics are insufficient to reflect the realities of topical complexity, actor coalitions, as well as financial, legal and institutional challenges in the light of extreme time constraints to avoid 'dangerous' climate change of more than 2°C. In this paper we analyze these stumbling blocks for international climate policy and discuss alternatives in order to regain momentum for future negotiations

The future of the CDM: same same, but differentiated?

Policy-makers and scientists have raised concerns about the functioning of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), in particular regarding its low contribution to sustainable development, unbalanced regional and sectoral distribution of projects, and its limited contribution to global emission reductions. Differentiation between countries or project types has been proposed as a possible way forward to address these problems. An overview is provided of the different ways in which CDM differentiation could be implemented. The implications for the actors involved in the CDM are analysed, along with a quantitative assessment of the impacts on the carbon market, using bottom-up marginal abatement cost curves. The discounting of CDM credits, quota systems, or differentiated eligibility of countries could help to address several of the concerns raised. Preferential treatment may also make a limited contribution to achieving the aims of CDM differentiation by increasing opportunities for under-represented host countries. The impact on the carbon market appears to be limited for most options

Mainstreaming climate change in regional development policy in Europe: four insights from the 2007-2013 programming period

Mainstreaming climate mitigation and adaptation concerns into EU policy sectors recently became one of the European Commission’s priorities. The Structural and Cohesion Funds (SCF) are a potentially important instrument for supporting climate policy-related efforts and addressing unevenly distributed capacities for successful mitigation and adaptation across the EU. This paper reports on the current level of climate mainstreaming in EU regional development policy: First, we explore the normative commitment to climate change concerns through an analysis of key national strategy documents for European regional development policy for all 27 member countries. Second, we analyze the substantive commitments by mapping financial allocations from the SCF related to climate mitigation and adaptation. We find that mitigation appears well mainstreamed in EU cohesion policies in normative terms, which is supported by increasing financial investments. Adaptation however is hardly considered. Even though potentially adaptation-relevant priorities and measures are being included at a rhetoric level, they are not backed by adequate substantial investments. Increased earmarking of SCF for climate purposes may be the most effective means for bringing cohesion policy in line with the EU 2020 strategy and its mitigation and adaptation objectives. Thereby, cohesion policy also gains meaning as a burden sharing instrument in the context of climate change.JRC.H.8-Sustainability Assessmen

First-degree relatives of cancer patients: a target group for primary prevention? A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND: Persons with a first-degree relative (FDR) with cancer are at increased cancer risk. We investigated preventive behaviour, cancer risk perception and readiness to change an unhealthy lifestyle in persons with and without an FDR with cancer. METHODS: Using an online questionnaire, we conducted a cross-sectional study in Germany including persons (≥35 years) with an FDR with colorectal, lung, prostate, breast, stomach or cervical/uterine cancer (n = 621) and persons without cancer in FDRs (n = 303). Quota sampling ensured similar age and sex distributions in both groups. RESULTS: Unfavourable lifestyle factors were equally common in both groups. The proportion perceiving an increased cancer risk significantly differed (p < 0.0001) with 4% among respondents without cancer in FDRs and 18% (colorectal cancer) to 30% (stomach cancer) among cancer patients’ relatives. The proportion of smokers ready to quit smoking was significantly higher among those perceiving an increased vs. a lower cancer risk (64 vs. 46%, p = 0.04). There was a similar association for readiness to increase physical activity and consumption of fruits/vegetables and to reduce alcohol consumption. CONCLUSIONS: Given the increased risk perception and motivation to change an unhealthy lifestyle, our study provides a strong rationale for research on the effectiveness of lifestyle interventions in cancer patients’ relatives