A policy review of synergies and trade-offs in South African climate change mitigation and air pollution control strategies

Climate change mitigation and air quality management are mostly addressed separately in South African legal acts and policies. This approach is not always coherent, especially in the context of other serious issues South Africa is facing, such as poverty alleviation. Policies implemented to mitigate climate change might increase negative health affects due to unanticipated outcomes (e.g. increased local air pollution), and these indirect consequences must therefore be taken into account when devising mitigation strategies. However, greenhouse gas mitigation policies can also have co-benefits and positive impacts on local air pollution. An evidence-based approach that takes into account greenhouse gas emissions, ambient air pollutants, economic factors (affordability, cost optimisation), social factors (poverty alleviations, public health benefits), and political acceptability is needed tackle these challenges. A proposal is made that use of an integrated climate/air pollution techno-economic optimising model, such as the Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollution Synergies (GAINS) model, may provide a rational decision support tool to guide policy makers into effective strategies for combined Climate Change and Air Quality mitigation measures.     

Indigenous benefits and carbon offset schemes: An Australian case study

The nexus between human rights and the environment is a key issue for climate policymakers and Indigenous peoples around the world. We combine national spatial, social and biological datasets from Australia to describe where Indigenous carbon projects are happening, why Indigenous people are participating, and how effective these schemes might be at marrying Indigenous co-benefit, biodiversity and carbon emission mitigation goals. Our study shows that many Indigenous people engage in carbon offset schemes as part of their broader cultural responsibility for landscapes, and that they seek to grow the relationship between social and ecological benefits. It also highlights the challenges associated with designing carbon offset schemes that address the impacts of climate change and respond to Indigenous peoples’ world views about what is required to sustain cultural-social-ecological systems.     

Co-benefits and additionality of the clean development mechanism: An empirical analysis

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) allows industrialized countries to comply with the Kyoto Protocol by using carbon offsets from developing countries. There are two puzzles within this carbon market: additionality (the proposed activity would not have occurred in its absence) and co-benefits (the project has other environmental benefits besides climate mitigation). This paper proposes an econometric approach to evaluate the CDM effect on sulfur dioxide emission reductions and assess its additionality indirectly. Our empirical model is applied to China's emissions at the prefecture level. We found that the CDM does not have a statistically significant effect in lowering sulfur dioxide emissions. This result casts doubt on additionality of these CDM activities, that is, they would have happened anyway.     

Co-benefit as an approach to align climate change concerns with national development objectives: solid waste management

Impinging local environmental problems on the one hand and constantly persuasive climate change concerns on the other put developing Asian cities in a dilemma as to which direction they should channel their efforts. While local matters are their immediate mandate, increasing awareness of climate change vulnerabilities adds weight to global problems. In this context, the concepts of co-benefits and ancillary benefits play an important role in aligning climate change concerns into sector-specific developmental goals. This article presents the conceptual aspects of co-benefits and the integration of climate concerns into sustainable development goals. The possible synergies between these two different but very important strategic pathways are examined along with possible ways to align them. The bottlenecks that can occur during such integration are also highlighted.     

The science and politics of co-benefits in climate policy

The co-benefits concept implies a ‘win–win’ strategy to address two or more goals with a single policy measure. There is much scholarly and policy attention paid to this concept as a way to avoid making trade-offs between developmental and environmental issues. However, there is no review paper that reviews the nature, evolution, strengths and limits of the co-benefits concept in relation to climate change. Hence, this review article addresses the question: What does the literature tell us about the definition, application and use of the co-benefits concept? Using a literature review approach, this article explains the evolution of the co-benefits concept and its strengths and weaknesses. We conclude that while the concept has tremendous advocacy potential in dealing with the problem that the costs and benefits of climate policy are temporally and spatially not aligned, its de facto potential is limited as mostly economists have engaged with this concept, and there is little trans-disciplinary work undertaken that also looks at the politics and institutional aspects of co-benefits. The article thus provides an impetus to rethink current approaches to studying co-benefits and points to the need for inter- and trans-disciplinary research drawing on economic, political and social sciences.     

Integrating mitigation and adaptation as responses to climate change: a synthesis

Integrating mitigation and adaptation (M&A) is a practical reality for climate change response policy, despite a range of conceptual and methodological challenges. Based on the papers in this special issue, some preliminary findings about appropriate integrated portfolios are offered, along with several implications for climate policy.