Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that information for adaptation is not a readily available resource to be collected but must be generated through a structured process of monitoring, target setting, and progress assessment. It proposes a conceptual model that links a 'CC/CV Observatory' (data collection) to an 'Information System' (processing) and finally to decision-makers at policy and operational levels. For Africa, the author emphasizes the need for long-term time series data, which is often lacking, and suggests involving the private sector and local populations (e.g., farmers using SMS) to sustain monitoring networks. The paper highlights the OMVS Environmental Observatory in Senegal as a successful participatory model for data collection. Regarding dissemination, it suggests tailored strategies: for mitigation, targeting industry and the informal sector (such as motorcycle users and cooling technicians); for adaptation, using National Action Plans for Adaptation (NAPA) to identify vulnerable groups and employing FAO's 'Information for Action' approach to deliver actionable, language-appropriate guidance.

The RANET project in Zambia has implemented a community-based approach to climate monitoring by providing rain gauges to 3,050 rural residents. To ensure this information is useful for adaptation, the project utilizes a multi-channel dissemination strategy including SMS messaging, satellite-based systems like Chatty Beetle, and community FM radio stations that translate data into local languages. The author argues that timely, accurate climate information is a 'perishable commodity' essential for reducing the vulnerability of peasant farmers who depend on rain for crop production.

The briefing outlines three strategic pillars for leaders to address the dual challenges of climate change and poverty: utilizing sound scientific evidence to drive political action, establishing a comprehensive global climate agreement, and correcting market failures through emissions pricing and redistribution from developed to developing nations.

The author, a Shell executive, asserts that achieving a sustainable energy future requires integrating sustainable development into business decisions and establishing a collaborative relationship between governments and industry. Shell utilizes 'scenarios' to navigate energy uncertainty and advocates for the 'Blueprints' model, which emphasizes anticipation of environmental issues. The paper highlights carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a critical technology for large emitters, noting that public policy and financial support, such as carbon pricing, are essential for its commercial viability. Using examples from Wyoming and Brazil, the author demonstrates how industry can manage environmental risks and community concerns. Finally, the document emphasizes that governments must appreciate the immense costs, long lead times, and technical challenges of energy production—exemplified by the Perdido project—to set workable regulations.

The author, Dan Bena of PepsiCo, advocates for a 'new collaborative era' where blurred boundaries between public and private sectors enable more effective climate adaptation. The document identifies two primary opportunities for government intervention supported by private sector expertise: instituting systems for efficient natural resource use and creating financial vehicles to provide credit to underserved communities. To illustrate these points, the paper details PepsiCo's initiatives in India, including 'direct seeding' in paddy cultivation to reduce water use and the formation of potato farmer cooperatives to mitigate credit risk. It also describes a partnership in Mexico with FUNDAR to develop sustainable agribusinesses for corn farmers and a project in Ceará, Brazil, where the PepsiCo Foundation supports the Columbia Water Center in integrating climate forecasts into state water allocation decisions via COGERH.

The author contends that national adaptation plans, such as National Adaptation Programs of Action (NAPAs), are overly state-driven and top-down, failing to engage the local communities that actually experience climate impacts. Because adaptation is inherently local, the paper argues that CSOs and NGOs are best positioned to build adaptive capacity, represent vulnerable populations, and ensure that technological interventions are socially embedded and sustainable. The author details several roles for CSOs, including resource mobilisation, vulnerability mapping, and advocating for regulatory changes to protect nature-based livelihoods. The document concludes by recommending a multi-tier institutional framework, citing India's National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) as a model for coordinating efforts between government, CSOs, and local stakeholders.

The author identifies five key functions for CSOs to promote the inclusion of climate risks in policy: improving public access to climate information, advocating for vulnerable groups, promoting accountability, supporting inclusive disaster risk reduction, and participating in inter-institutional coordination. The paper highlights that in developing countries, particularly Andean nations, local-level climate data is often scarce or inaccessible, and policy tends to favor high-GDP sectors over the most vulnerable small-scale producers. It argues that CSOs can bridge the gap between research institutions and the public and use community monitoring to ensure adaptation resources are distributed equitably.

The document analyzes how a U.S. federal cap-and-trade system can address 'early action'—emissions reductions occurring before the program's start. It argues that awarding credits from 'under the cap' preserves environmental integrity, whereas credits 'above the cap' risk inflating permissible emissions. The paper details the challenges of verifying reductions for voluntary direct, indirect, and offset actors, particularly regarding additionality and leakage. It also proposes mechanisms for transitioning existing regional programs, such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), into a federal system using dollar-for-dollar allowance exchanges to prevent price volatility.

In 2005, total global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions were estimated at 44,153 MtCO2 equivalent, representing a 12.7% increase from 2000. The energy sector, specifically electricity, heat, and transportation, drove much of this growth, with developing countries accounting for the majority of emissions in electricity, heat, and industry. While high global warming potential gases grew by 44% between 2000 and 2005, they remain a small percentage of total emissions. Notably, revised methodologies for calculating land-use change reduced its estimated share of total GHGs from 18.2% to 12.2%, although actual emissions from this sector grew by 4.1% during the period.

The report compares the climate change strategies of India, Brazil, China, Mexico, and South Africa, detailing their objectives, development processes, emission scenarios, and specific mitigation and adaptation interventions. It observes that while these plans identify national priorities and visions, they often lack concrete implementation procedures and specific action-steps, particularly regarding adaptation.

The document reports that fossil fuels accounted for 90% of Alabama's energy consumption in 2006 and approximately 70% of its electricity generation. Between 1990 and 2005, the state's greenhouse gas emissions grew by 21%, a rate exceeding the U.S. average, primarily driven by the electric generation sector.

As of 2006, fossil fuels accounted for 80% of Florida's energy consumption, with 84% of electricity generation derived from fossil fuels. Between 1990 and 2005, the state's greenhouse gas emissions grew by 39%, a rate more than twice the U.S. average, driven primarily by the transportation and electric generation sectors.

As of 2006, fossil fuels accounted for 78% of Georgia's energy consumption, with coal and nuclear power serving as the primary sources for electricity generation. Between 1990 and 2005, the state's greenhouse gas emissions grew by 33%, a rate nearly double the U.S. average, driven largely by the transportation and electric generation sectors.

The document reports that fossil fuels accounted for 81% of Mississippi's energy consumption as of 2006, driven by transportation and electricity generation. Between 1990 and 2005, the state's greenhouse gas emissions grew by 32%, a rate nearly double the U.S. average, with 84% of those emissions resulting from energy consumption as of 2005.

North Carolina's energy consumption is dominated by fossil fuels, which accounted for 74% of state energy use in 2006. Between 1990 and 2005, the state's greenhouse gas emissions grew by 40%, a rate more than double the U.S. average, driven primarily by the transportation and electric generation sectors.

The document reports that fossil fuels accounted for 71% of South Carolina's energy consumption as of 2006, driven by demand in transportation, industry, and electricity generation. Between 1990 and 2005, the state's greenhouse gas emissions grew by 42%, a rate more than double the U.S. average, with 90% of those emissions resulting from energy consumption, primarily the combustion of coal and petroleum.

As of 2006, fossil fuels accounted for 75% of Tennessee's energy consumption, with electricity primarily generated from coal and nuclear power. Between 1990 and 2005, the state's greenhouse gas emissions grew by 21%, a rate that exceeded the U.S. average, driven largely by the transportation and electric generation sectors.

As of 2006, fossil fuels accounted for 68% of Virginia's energy consumption, with approximately 78% of electricity generation derived from fossil fuels. Between 1990 and 2005, state greenhouse gas emissions increased by 15%, a growth rate slower than the U.S. average, with 91% of 2005 emissions resulting from energy consumption.

Alabama has the potential to generate an additional 51,000 GWh of electricity from renewable resources by 2025, which would represent approximately 60 percent of current electricity sales. The document identifies biomass, solar PV, and low-impact hydro as key resources and recommends the establishment of a renewable electricity standard (RES) with a target of 25 percent by 2025.

Florida has the potential to generate an additional 40,000 GWh of electricity from renewable resources by the mid-term (through 2025), which would represent approximately 20 percent of current electricity sales. The document identifies biomass and solar PV as the primary contributors to this potential and argues that while renewable and conventional power options have comparable total costs for new generation, renewables offer superior performance regarding water use, air quality, and climate impacts. To achieve these goals, the document recommends establishing a renewable electricity standard (RES) with a target of 20 percent by 2020, providing financial incentives for third-party production, and improving grid infrastructure and permitting processes.