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

Multiple carbon accounting to support just and effective climate policies

Negotiating reductions in greenhouse gas emission involves the allocation of emissions and of emission reductions to specific agents, and notably, within the current UN framework, to associated countries. As production takes place in supply chains,increasingly extending over several countries, there are various options available in which emissions originating from one and the same activity may be attributed to different agents along the supply chain and thus to different countries. In this way, several distinct types of national carbon accounts can be constructed. We argue that these accounts will typically differ in the information they provide to individual countries on the effects their actions have on global emissions; and they may also, to varying degrees, prove useful in supporting the pursuit of an effective and just climate policy. None of the accounting systems, however, prove 'best' in achieving these aims under real-world circumstances; we thus suggest compiling reliable data to aid in the consistent calculation of multiple carbon accounts on a global level

How strong is public support for unilateral climate policy and what drives it?

ISSN:1757-7780ISSN:1757-779

Characterization of a novel and potentially lethal designer drug (±)-cis-para-methyl-4-methylaminorex (4,4'-DMAR, or ‘Serotoni’)

During the second half of 2013, a total of 26 deaths involving para-methyl-4-methylaminorex (4,4'-DMAR) were reported to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. While aminorex and 4-methylaminorex (4-MAR) are known psychostimulants, nothing is known about the comparatively new para-methyl analog. Analytical characterization of two independent samples obtained from online vendors confirmed the presence of the (±)-cis isomer that also appeared to be associated with at least 18 of the 26 deaths. Extensive characterizations included crystal structure analysis, single, tandem, and high-resolution mass spectrometry, liquid and gas chromatography, and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. For the work described here, both the (±)-cis and (±)-trans racemates were also synthesized, confirming that the differentiation between these two forms was straight-forward. Monoamine transporter activity was studied using rat brain synaptosomes which included the comparison with d-amphetamine, aminorex and (±)-cis-4-MAR. (±)-cis-4,4'-DMAR was a potent, efficacious substrate-type releaser at transporters for dopamine, norepinephrine and serotonin with EC50 values of 8.6 ± 1.1 nM (DAT), 26.9 ± 5.9 nM (NET) and 18.5 ± 2.8 nM (SERT), respectively. The potency of (±)-cis-4,4′-DMAR at DAT and NET rivalled that of other psychomotor stimulant drugs like d-amphetamine and aminorex. However, (±)-cis-4,4′-DMAR had much more potent actions at SERT and activity at SERT varied more than 100-fold across the four drugs. The potent releasing activity of (±)-cis-4,4′-DMAR at all three monoamine transporters predicts a potential for serious side-effects such as psychotic symptoms, agitation, hyperthermia and cardiovascular stimulation, especially after high-dose exposure or following combination with other psychostimulants