cl

Novel Detection and Restorative Levodopa Treatment for Pre-Clinical Diabetic Retinopathy

By diabetes.diabetesjournals.org
Published On :: 2020-02-12T12:37:27-08:00

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is diagnosed clinically by directly viewing retinal vascular changes during ophthalmoscopy or through fundus photographs. However, electroretinography (ERG) studies in humans and rodents have revealed that retinal dysfunction is demonstrable prior to the development of visible vascular defects. Specifically, delays in dark-adapted ERG oscillatory potential (OP) implicit times in response to dim flash stimuli (<-1.8 log cd·s/m2) occur prior to clinically-recognized diabetic retinopathy. Animal studies suggest that retinal dopamine deficiency underlies these early functional deficits. Here, we randomized persons with diabetes, without clinically detectable retinopathy, to treatment with either low or high dose Sinemet (levodopa plus carbidopa) for 2 weeks and compared their ERG findings with those of control (no DM) subjects. We assessed dim flash stimulated OP delays using a novel hand-held ERG system (RETeval) at baseline, 2 and 4 weeks. RETeval recordings identified significant OP implicit-time delays in persons with diabetes without retinopathy compared to age-matched controls (p<0.001). After two weeks of Sinemet treatment, OP implicit times were restored to control values, and these improvements persisted even after a two-week washout. We conclude that detection of dim flash OP delays could provide early detection of DR, and that Sinemet treatment may reverse retinal dysfunction.


Full Article

cl

Coregulator Sin3a Promotes Postnatal Murine {beta}-Cell Fitness by Regulating Genes in Ca2+ Homeostasis, Cell Survival, Vesicle Biosynthesis, Glucose Metabolism, and Stress Response

By diabetes.diabetesjournals.org
Published On :: 2020-04-21T12:16:29-07:00

Swi-independent 3a and 3b (Sin3a and Sin3b) are paralogous transcriptional coregulators that direct cellular differentiation, survival, and function. Here, we report that mouse Sin3a and Sin3b are co-produced in most pancreatic cells during embryogenesis but become much more enriched in endocrine cells in adults, implying continued essential roles in mature endocrine-cell function. Mice with loss of Sin3a in endocrine progenitors were normal during early postnatal stages but gradually developed diabetes before weaning. These physiological defects were preceded by the compromised survival, insulin-vesicle packaging, insulin secretion, and nutrient-induced Ca2+ influx of Sin3a-deficient β-cells. RNA-seq coupled with candidate chromatin-immunoprecipitation assays revealed several genes that could be directly regulated by Sin3a in β-cells, which modulate Ca2+/ion transport, cell survival, vesicle/membrane trafficking, glucose metabolism, and stress responses. Lastly, mice with loss of both Sin3a and Sin3b in multipotent embryonic pancreatic progenitors had significantly reduced islet-cell mass at birth, caused by decreased endocrine-progenitor production and increased β-cell death. These findings highlight the stage-specific requirements for the presumed "general" coregulators Sin3a and Sin3b in islet β-cells, with Sin3a being dispensable for differentiation but required for postnatal function and survival.


Full Article

cl

Elevated First-Trimester Neutrophil Count Is Closely Associated with the Development of Maternal Gestational Diabetes Mellitus and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes

By diabetes.diabetesjournals.org
Published On :: 2020-04-24T14:58:49-07:00

Chronic low-grade inflammation plays a central role in the pathophysiology of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). In order to investigate the ability of different inflammatory blood cell parameters in predicting the development of GDM and pregnancy outcomes, 258 women with GDM and 1154 women without were included in this retrospective study. First-trimester neutrophil count outperformed white blood cell (WBC) count, and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) in the predictability for GDM. Subjects were grouped based on tertiles of neutrophil count during their first-trimester pregnancy. The results showed that as the neutrophil count increased, there was a step-wise increase in GDM incidence, as well as glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level, Homeostasis Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR), macrosomia incidence and newborn weight. Neutrophil count was positively associated with pre-pregnancy Body Mass Index (BMI), HOMA-IR and newborn weight. Additionally, neutrophil count was an independent risk factor for the development of GDM, regardless of the history of GDM. Spline regression showed that there was a significant linear association between GDM incidence and continuous neutrophil count when it exceeded 5.0 x 109/L. This work suggested that first-trimester neutrophil count is closely associated with the development of GDM and adverse pregnancy outcomes.


Full Article

cl

Maternal Obesity and Western-Style Diet Impair Fetal and Juvenile Offspring Skeletal Muscle Insulin-Stimulated Glucose Transport in Nonhuman Primates

By diabetes.diabetesjournals.org
Published On :: 2020-04-30T07:18:52-07:00

Infants born to mothers with obesity have a greater risk for childhood obesity and metabolic diseases; however, the underlying biological mechanisms remain poorly understood. We used a Japanese macaque model to investigate whether maternal obesity combined with a western-style diet (WSD) impairs offspring muscle insulin action. Adult females were fed a control or WSD prior to and during pregnancy through lactation, and offspring subsequently weaned to a control or WSD. Muscle glucose uptake and signaling were measured ex vivo in fetal (n=5-8/group) and juvenile offspring (n=8/group). In vivo signaling was evaluated after an insulin bolus just prior to weaning (n=4-5/group). Maternal WSD reduced insulin-stimulated glucose uptake and impaired insulin signaling at the level of Akt phosphorylation in fetal muscle. In juvenile offspring, insulin-stimulated glucose uptake was similarly reduced by both maternal and post-weaning WSD and corresponded to modest reductions in insulin-stimulated Akt phosphorylation relative to controls. We conclude that maternal WSD leads to a persistent decrease in offspring muscle insulin-stimulated glucose uptake even in the absence of increased offspring adiposity or markers of systemic insulin resistance. Switching offspring to a healthy diet did not reverse the effects of maternal WSD on muscle insulin action suggesting earlier interventions may be warranted.


Full Article

cl

Longitudinal Analysis of Serum Cytokine Levels and Gut Microbial Abundance Links IL-17/IL-22 with Clostridia and Insulin Sensitivity in Humans

By diabetes.diabetesjournals.org
Published On :: 2020-05-04T10:07:04-07:00

Recent studies using mouse models suggest that interaction between the gut microbiome and IL-17/IL-22 producing cells plays a role in the development of metabolic diseases. We investigated this relationship in humans using data from the prediabetes study of the Integrated Human Microbiome Project (iHMP). Specifically, we addressed the hypothesis that early in the onset of metabolic diseases there is a decline in serum levels of IL-17/IL-22, with concomitant changes in the gut microbiome. Clustering iHMP study participants on the basis of longitudinal IL-17/IL-22 profiles identified discrete groups. Individuals distinguished by low levels of IL-17/IL-22 were linked to established markers of metabolic disease, including insulin sensitivity. These individuals also displayed gut microbiome dysbiosis, characterized by decreased diversity, and IL-17/IL-22-related declines in the phylum Firmicutes, class Clostridia, and order Clostridiales. This ancillary analysis of the iHMP data therefore supports a link between the gut microbiome, IL-17/IL-22 and the onset of metabolic diseases. This raises the possibility for novel, microbiome-related therapeutic targets that may effectively alleviate metabolic diseases in humans as they do in animal models.


Full Article

cl

Glucolipotoxicity, {beta}-Cells, and Diabetes: The Emperor Has No Clothes

By diabetes.diabetesjournals.org
Published On :: 2020-02-20T11:55:30-08:00

Reduction of β-cell mass and function is central to the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes. The terms glucotoxicity, lipotoxicity, and glucolipotoxicity are used to describe potentially responsible processes. The premise is that chronically elevated glucose levels are toxic to β-cells, that elevated lipid levels in the form of circulating free fatty acids (FFA) also have toxic effects, and that the combination of the two, glucolipotoxicity, is particularly harmful. Much work has shown that high concentrations of FFA can be very damaging to β-cells when used for in vitro experiments, and when infused in large amounts in humans and rodents they produce suppression of insulin secretion. The purpose of this Perspective is to raise doubts about whether the FFA levels found in real-life situations are ever high enough to cause problems. Evidence supporting the importance of glucotoxicity is strong because there is such a tight correlation between defective insulin secretion and rising glucose levels. However, there is virtually no convincing evidence that the alterations in FFA levels occurring during progression to diabetes are pathogenic. Thus, the terms lipotoxicity and glucolipotoxicity should be used with great caution, if at all, because evidence supporting their importance has not yet emerged.


Full Article

cl

Exercise Combats Hepatic Steatosis: Potential Mechanisms and Clinical Implications

By diabetes.diabetesjournals.org
Published On :: 2020-03-20T11:50:28-07:00

Hepatic steatosis, the excess storage of intrahepatic lipids, is a rampant clinical problem associated with the obesity epidemic. Hepatic steatosis is linked to increased risk for insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular and advanced liver disease. Accumulating evidence shows that physical activity, exercise, and aerobic capacity have profound effects on regulating intrahepatic lipids and mediating susceptibility for hepatic steatosis. Moreover, exercise can effectively reduce hepatic steatosis independent of changes in body mass. In this perspective, we highlight 1) the relationship between obesity and metabolic pathways putatively driving hepatic steatosis compared with changes induced by exercise; 2) the impact of physical activity, exercise, and aerobic capacity compared with caloric restriction on regulating intrahepatic lipids and steatosis risk; 3) the effects of exercise training (modalities, volume, intensity) for treatment of hepatic steatosis, and 4) evidence for a sustained protection against steatosis induced by exercise. Overall, evidence clearly indicates that exercise powerfully regulates intrahepatic storage of fat and risk for steatosis.


Full Article

cl

Two- and three-color STORM analysis reveals higher-order assembly of leukotriene synthetic complexes on the nuclear envelope of murine neutrophils [Computational Biology]

By feedproxy.google.com
Published On :: 2020-04-24T06:08:45-07:00

Over the last several years it has become clear that higher order assemblies on membranes, exemplified by signalosomes, are a paradigm for the regulation of many membrane signaling processes. We have recently combined two-color direct stochastic optical reconstruction microscopy (dSTORM) with the (Clus-DoC) algorithm that combines cluster detection and colocalization analysis to observe the organization of 5-lipoxygenase (5-LO) and 5-lipoxygenase–activating protein (FLAP) into higher order assemblies on the nuclear envelope of mast cells; these assemblies were linked to leukotriene (LT) C4 production. In this study we investigated whether higher order assemblies of 5-LO and FLAP included cytosolic phospholipase A2 (cPLA2) and were linked to LTB4 production in murine neutrophils. Using two- and three-color dSTORM supported by fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy we identified higher order assemblies containing 40 molecules (median) (IQR: 23, 87) of 5-LO, and 53 molecules (62, 156) of FLAP monomer. 98 (18, 154) molecules of cPLA2 were clustered with 5-LO, and 77 (33, 114) molecules of cPLA2 were associated with FLAP. These assemblies were tightly linked to LTB4 formation. The activation-dependent close associations of cPLA2, FLAP, and 5-LO in higher order assemblies on the nuclear envelope support a model in which arachidonic acid is generated by cPLA2 in apposition to FLAP, facilitating its transfer to 5-LO to initiate LT synthesis.


Full Article

cl

DHHC7-mediated palmitoylation of the accessory protein barttin critically regulates the functions of ClC-K chloride channels [Cell Biology]

By feedproxy.google.com
Published On :: 2020-05-01T00:06:09-07:00

Barttin is the accessory subunit of the human ClC-K chloride channels, which are expressed in both the kidney and inner ear. Barttin promotes trafficking of the complex it forms with ClC-K to the plasma membrane and is involved in activating this channel. Barttin undergoes post-translational palmitoylation that is essential for its functions, but the enzyme(s) catalyzing this post-translational modification is unknown. Here, we identified zinc finger DHHC-type containing 7 (DHHC7) protein as an important barttin palmitoyl acyltransferase, whose depletion affected barttin palmitoylation and ClC-K-barttin channel activation. We investigated the functional role of barttin palmitoylation in vivo in Zdhhc7−/− mice. Although palmitoylation of barttin in kidneys of Zdhhc7−/− animals was significantly decreased, it did not pathologically alter kidney structure and functions under physiological conditions. However, when Zdhhc7−/− mice were fed a low-salt diet, they developed hyponatremia and mild metabolic alkalosis, symptoms characteristic of human Bartter syndrome (BS) type IV. Of note, we also observed decreased palmitoylation of the disease-causing R8L barttin variant associated with human BS type IV. Our results indicate that dysregulated DHHC7-mediated barttin palmitoylation appears to play an important role in chloride channel dysfunction in certain BS variants, suggesting that targeting DHHC7 activity may offer a potential therapeutic strategy for reducing hypertension.


Full Article

cl

Effects of deficiency in the RLBP1-encoded visual cycle protein CRALBP on visual dysfunction in humans and mice [Cell Biology]

By feedproxy.google.com
Published On :: 2020-05-08T03:41:14-07:00

Mutations in retinaldehyde-binding protein 1 (RLBP1), encoding the visual cycle protein cellular retinaldehyde-binding protein (CRALBP), cause an autosomal recessive form of retinal degeneration. By binding to 11-cis-retinoid, CRALBP augments the isomerase activity of retinoid isomerohydrolase RPE65 (RPE65) and facilitates 11-cis-retinol oxidation to 11-cis-retinal. CRALBP also maintains the 11-cis configuration and protects against unwanted retinaldehyde activity. Studying a sibling pair that is compound heterozygous for mutations in RLBP1/CRALBP, here we expand the phenotype of affected individuals, elucidate a previously unreported phenotype in RLBP1/CRALBP carriers, and demonstrate consistencies between the affected individuals and Rlbp1/Cralbp−/− mice. In the RLBP1/CRALBP-affected individuals, nonrecordable rod-specific electroretinogram traces were recovered after prolonged dark adaptation. In ultrawide-field fundus images, we observed radially arranged puncta typical of RLBP1/CRALBP-associated disease. Spectral domain-optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) revealed hyperreflective aberrations within photoreceptor-associated bands. In short-wavelength fundus autofluorescence (SW-AF) images, speckled hyperautofluorescence and mottling indicated macular involvement. In both the affected individuals and their asymptomatic carrier parents, reduced SW-AF intensities, measured as quantitative fundus autofluorescence (qAF), indicated chronic impairment in 11-cis-retinal availability and provided information on mutation severity. Hypertransmission of the SD-OCT signal into the choroid together with decreased near-infrared autofluorescence (NIR-AF) provided evidence for retinal pigment epithelial cell (RPE) involvement. In Rlbp1/Cralbp−/− mice, reduced 11-cis-retinal levels, qAF and NIR-AF intensities, and photoreceptor loss were consistent with the clinical presentation of the affected siblings. These findings indicate that RLBP1 mutations are associated with progressive disease involving RPE atrophy and photoreceptor cell degeneration. In asymptomatic carriers, qAF disclosed previously undetected visual cycle deficiency.


Full Article

cl

Structural basis of specific inhibition of extracellular activation of pro- or latent myostatin by the monoclonal antibody SRK-015 [Molecular Biophysics]

By feedproxy.google.com
Published On :: 2020-04-17T00:06:05-07:00

Myostatin (or growth/differentiation factor 8 (GDF8)) is a member of the transforming growth factor β superfamily of growth factors and negatively regulates skeletal muscle growth. Its dysregulation is implicated in muscle wasting diseases. SRK-015 is a clinical-stage mAb that prevents extracellular proteolytic activation of pro- and latent myostatin. Here we used integrated structural and biochemical approaches to elucidate the molecular mechanism of antibody-mediated neutralization of pro-myostatin activation. The crystal structure of pro-myostatin in complex with 29H4-16 Fab, a high-affinity variant of SRK-015, at 2.79 Å resolution revealed that the antibody binds to a conformational epitope in the arm region of the prodomain distant from the proteolytic cleavage sites. This epitope is highly sequence-divergent, having only limited similarity to other closely related members of the transforming growth factor β superfamily. Hydrogen/deuterium exchange MS experiments indicated that antibody binding induces conformational changes in pro- and latent myostatin that span the arm region, the loops contiguous to the protease cleavage sites, and the latency-associated structural elements. Moreover, negative-stain EM with full-length antibodies disclosed a stable, ring-like antigen–antibody structure in which the two Fab arms of a single antibody occupy the two arm regions of the prodomain in the pro- and latent myostatin homodimers, suggesting a 1:1 (antibody:myostatin homodimer) binding stoichiometry. These results suggest that SRK-015 binding stabilizes the latent conformation and limits the accessibility of protease cleavage sites within the prodomain. These findings shed light on approaches that specifically block the extracellular activation of growth factors by targeting their precursor forms.


Full Article

cl

Structures of the MHC-I molecule BF2*1501 disclose the preferred presentation of an H5N1 virus-derived epitope [Protein Structure and Folding]

By feedproxy.google.com
Published On :: 2020-04-17T00:06:05-07:00

Lethal infections by strains of the highly-pathogenic avian influenza virus (HPAIV) H5N1 pose serious threats to both the poultry industry and public health worldwide. A lack of confirmed HPAIV epitopes recognized by cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) has hindered the utilization of CD8+ T-cell–mediated immunity and has precluded the development of effectively diversified epitope-based vaccination approaches. In particular, an HPAIV H5N1 CTL-recognized epitope based on the peptide MHC-I–β2m (pMHC-I) complex has not yet been designed. Here, screening a collection of selected peptides of several HPAIV strains against a specific pathogen-free pMHC-I (pBF2*1501), we identified a highly-conserved HPAIV H5N1 CTL epitope, named HPAIV–PA123–130. We determined the structure of the BF2*1501–PA123–130 complex at 2.1 Å resolution to elucidate the molecular mechanisms of a preferential presentation of the highly-conserved PA123–130 epitope in the chicken B15 lineage. Conformational characteristics of the PA123–130 epitope with a protruding Tyr-7 residue indicated that this epitope has great potential to be recognized by specific TCRs. Moreover, significantly increased numbers of CD8+ T cells specific for the HPAIV–PA123–130 epitope in peptide-immunized chickens indicated that a repertoire of CD8+ T cells can specifically respond to this epitope. We anticipate that the identification and structural characterization of the PA123–130 epitope reported here could enable further studies of CTL immunity against HPAIV H5N1. Such studies may aid in the development of vaccine development strategies using well-conserved internal viral antigens in chickens.


Full Article

cl

Structural and mutational analyses of the bifunctional arginine dihydrolase and ornithine cyclodeaminase AgrE from the cyanobacterium Anabaena [Enzymology]

By feedproxy.google.com
Published On :: 2020-04-24T06:08:45-07:00

In cyanobacteria, metabolic pathways that use the nitrogen-rich amino acid arginine play a pivotal role in nitrogen storage and mobilization. The N-terminal domains of two recently identified bacterial enzymes: ArgZ from Synechocystis and AgrE from Anabaena, have been found to contain an arginine dihydrolase. This enzyme provides catabolic activity that converts arginine to ornithine, resulting in concomitant release of CO2 and ammonia. In Synechocystis, the ArgZ-mediated ornithine–ammonia cycle plays a central role in nitrogen storage and remobilization. The C-terminal domain of AgrE contains an ornithine cyclodeaminase responsible for the formation of proline from ornithine and ammonia production, indicating that AgrE is a bifunctional enzyme catalyzing two sequential reactions in arginine catabolism. Here, the crystal structures of AgrE in three different ligation states revealed that it has a tetrameric conformation, possesses a binding site for the arginine dihydrolase substrate l-arginine and product l-ornithine, and contains a binding site for the coenzyme NAD(H) required for ornithine cyclodeaminase activity. Structure–function analyses indicated that the structure and catalytic mechanism of arginine dihydrolase in AgrE are highly homologous with those of a known bacterial arginine hydrolase. We found that in addition to other active-site residues, Asn-71 is essential for AgrE's dihydrolase activity. Further analysis suggested the presence of a passage for substrate channeling between the two distinct AgrE active sites, which are situated ∼45 Å apart. These results provide structural and functional insights into the bifunctional arginine dihydrolase–ornithine cyclodeaminase enzyme AgrE required for arginine catabolism in Anabaena.


Full Article

cl

Glycation-mediated inter-protein cross-linking is promoted by chaperone-client complexes of {alpha}-crystallin: Implications for lens aging and presbyopia [Glycobiology and Extracellular Matrices]

By feedproxy.google.com
Published On :: 2020-04-24T06:08:45-07:00

Lens proteins become increasingly cross-linked through nondisulfide linkages during aging and cataract formation. One mechanism that has been implicated in this cross-linking is glycation through formation of advanced glycation end products (AGEs). Here, we found an age-associated increase in stiffness in human lenses that was directly correlated with levels of protein–cross-linking AGEs. α-Crystallin in the lens binds to other proteins and prevents their denaturation and aggregation through its chaperone-like activity. Using a FRET-based assay, we examined the stability of the αA-crystallin–γD-crystallin complex for up to 12 days and observed that this complex is stable in PBS and upon incubation with human lens–epithelial cell lysate or lens homogenate. Addition of 2 mm ATP to the lysate or homogenate did not decrease the stability of the complex. We also generated complexes of human αA-crystallin or αB-crystallin with alcohol dehydrogenase or citrate synthase by applying thermal stress. Upon glycation under physiological conditions, the chaperone–client complexes underwent greater extents of cross-linking than did uncomplexed protein mixtures. LC-MS/MS analyses revealed that the levels of cross-linking AGEs were significantly higher in the glycated chaperone–client complexes than in glycated but uncomplexed protein mixtures. Mouse lenses subjected to thermal stress followed by glycation lost resilience more extensively than lenses subjected to thermal stress or glycation alone, and this loss was accompanied by higher protein cross-linking and higher cross-linking AGE levels. These results uncover a protein cross-linking mechanism in the lens and suggest that AGE-mediated cross-linking of α-crystallin–client complexes could contribute to lens aging and presbyopia.


Full Article

cl

Affinity maturation, humanization, and co-crystallization of a rabbit anti-human ROR2 monoclonal antibody for therapeutic applications [Immunology]

By feedproxy.google.com
Published On :: 2020-05-01T00:06:09-07:00

Antibodies are widely used as cancer therapeutics, but their current use is limited by the low number of antigens restricted to cancer cells. A receptor tyrosine kinase, receptor tyrosine kinase-like orphan receptor 2 (ROR2), is normally expressed only during embryogenesis and is tightly down-regulated in postnatal healthy tissues. However, it is up-regulated in a diverse set of hematologic and solid malignancies, thus ROR2 represents a candidate antigen for antibody-based cancer therapy. Here we describe the affinity maturation and humanization of a rabbit mAb that binds human and mouse ROR2 but not human ROR1 or other human cell-surface antigens. Co-crystallization of the parental rabbit mAb in complex with the human ROR2 kringle domain (hROR2-Kr) guided affinity maturation by heavy-chain complementarity-determining region 3 (HCDR3)-focused mutagenesis and selection. The affinity-matured rabbit mAb was then humanized by complementarity-determining region (CDR) grafting and framework fine tuning and again co-crystallized with hROR2-Kr. We show that the affinity-matured and humanized mAb retains strong affinity and specificity to ROR2 and, following conversion to a T cell–engaging bispecific antibody, has potent cytotoxicity toward ROR2-expressing cells. We anticipate that this humanized affinity-matured mAb will find application for antibody-based cancer therapy of ROR2-expressing neoplasms.


Full Article

cl

Muscle Weakness: A Progressive Late Complication in Diabetic Distal Symmetric Polyneuropathy

By diabetes.diabetesjournals.org
Published On :: 2006-03-01

Christer S. Andreassen
Mar 1, 2006; 55:806-812
Complications


Full Article

cl

Nicotine and Insulin Resistance: When the Smoke Clears

By diabetes.diabetesjournals.org
Published On :: 2012-12-01

Mandeep Bajaj
Dec 1, 2012; 61:3078-3080
Commentary


Full Article

cl

One Week of Bed Rest Leads to Substantial Muscle Atrophy and Induces Whole-Body Insulin Resistance in the Absence of Skeletal Muscle Lipid Accumulation

By diabetes.diabetesjournals.org
Published On :: 2016-10-01

Marlou L. Dirks
Oct 1, 2016; 65:2862-2875
Metabolism


Full Article

cl

Low-Grade Systemic Inflammation and the Development of Type 2 Diabetes: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study

By diabetes.diabetesjournals.org
Published On :: 2003-07-01

Bruce B. Duncan
Jul 1, 2003; 52:1799-1805
Pathophysiology


Full Article

cl

Diabetes in China: Epidemiology and Genetic Risk Factors and Their Clinical Utility in Personalized Medication

By diabetes.diabetesjournals.org
Published On :: 2018-01-01

Cheng Hu
Jan 1, 2018; 67:3-11
Perspectives in Diabetes


Full Article

cl

Correction: Mitochondrial and nuclear genomic responses to loss of LRPPRC expression. [Additions and Corrections]

By feedproxy.google.com
Published On :: 2020-04-17T00:06:05-07:00

VOLUME 285 (2010) PAGES 13742–13747In Fig. 1E, passage 10, the splicing of a non-adjacent lane from the same immunoblot was not marked. This error has now been corrected and does not affect the results or conclusions of this work.jbc;295/16/5533/F1F1F1Figure 1E.


Full Article

cl

Duggar, Jones cleared for next step in recovery

By mlb.mlb.com
Published On :: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 18:10:20 EDT

Steven Duggar and Ryder Jones continue to take steps forward in their rehab, as they were both cleared to take batting practice on the field Friday for the first time since their September surgeries.


Full Article

cl

Reasons for optimism for each MLB club

By mlb.mlb.com
Published On :: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 21:02:04 EDT

On this opening week of Spring Training, all 30 Major League teams have one thing in common: optimism. Here's an optimism cheat sheet for each of them.


Full Article

cl

How changes to drug prohibition could be good for the UK—an essay by Molly Meacher and Nick Clegg

By feeds.bmj.com
Published On :: Monday, November 14, 2016 - 23:30


Full Article

cl

Close cousins in protection: the evolution of two norms

By feedproxy.google.com
Published On :: Thu, 02 May 2019 09:37:09 +0000

2 May 2019 , Volume 95, Number 3

Read online

Emily Paddon Rhoads and Jennifer Welsh

The Protection of Civilians (PoC) in peacekeeping and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) populations from atrocity crimes are two norms that emerged at the turn of the new millennium with the aim of protecting vulnerable peoples from mass violence and/or systematic and widespread violations of human rights. To date, most scholars have analysed the discourses over the status, strength and robustness of both norms separately. And yet, the distinction between the two has at times been exceptionally fine. In this article, we analyse the constitutive relationship between PoC and R2P, and the impact of discursive and behavioural contestation on their joint evolution within the UN system and state practice over three phases (1999–2005; 2006–10; 2011–18). In so doing, we contribute to the International Relations literature on norms by illuminating ideational interplay in the dynamics of norm evolution and contestation. More specifically, we illustrate how actors may seek to strengthen support for one norm, or dimension of a norm, by contrasting it or linking it with another. Our analysis also reveals that while the two norms of R2P and PoC were initially debated and implemented through different institutional paths and policy frameworks, discursive and behavioural contestation has in more recent years brought them closer together in one important respect. The meaning ascribed to both norms—by representatives of states and institutions such as the United Nations—has become more state-centric, with an emphasis on building and strengthening the capacity of national authorities to protect populations. This meaning contrasts with the more cosmopolitan origins of R2P and PoC, and arguably limits possibilities for the external enforcement of both norms through any form of international authority that stands above or outside sovereign states. This article forms part of the special section of the May 2019 issue of International Affairs on ‘The dynamics of dissent’, guest-edited by Anette Stimmer and Lea Wisken.


Full Article

cl

Brexit and the UN Security Council: declining British influence?

By feedproxy.google.com
Published On :: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 09:14:28 +0000

6 November 2019 , Volume 95, Number 6

Jess Gifkins, Samuel Jarvis and Jason Ralph

Read online
The United Kingdom's decision to leave the European Union has ramifications beyond the UK and the EU. This article analyses the impact of the Brexit referendum on the UK's political capital in the United Nations Security Council; a dimension of Brexit that has received little attention thus far. Drawing on extensive elite interviews we show that the UK has considerable political capital in the Council, where it is seen as one of the most effective actors, but the reputational costs of Brexit are tarnishing this image. With case-studies on the UK's role in Somalia and Yemen we show how the UK has been able to further its interests with dual roles in the EU and Security Council, and the risks posed by tensions between trade and human rights after Brexit. We also analyse what it takes to be influential within the Security Council and argue that more attention should be paid to the practices of diplomacy. Influence is gained via penholding, strong diplomatic skill and a well-regarded UN permanent representative. The UK accrues political capital as a leader on the humanitarian and human rights side of the Council's agenda, but this reputation is at risk as it exits the EU.


Full Article

cl

A New Decade: The Path to Sustainable and Inclusive Trade

By feedproxy.google.com
Published On :: Mon, 06 Jan 2020 14:30:01 +0000

Invitation Only Research Event

17 January 2020 - 8:15am to 9:15am

Chatham House | 10 St James's Square | London | SW1Y 4LE

Event participants

Arancha González, Executive Director, International Trade Centre
Chair: Marianne Schneider-Petsinger, Research Fellow, US and the Americas Programme, Chatham House

Trade has received a lot of attention recently with the US and China still negotiating a trade agreement and the World Trade Organization coming under threat. But the global trade system is also adapting to changing geopolitical dynamics and rapid technological transformations. In light of a backlash against globalization, how can trade be made more sustainable and inclusive? What actions are needed for global trade and the trading system to adjust to changes in technology and environmental considerations? What efforts are key players such as the US, EU and China taking on these fronts?

Against this backdrop, Ms Arancha González will join us for a roundtable discussion on the future of trade and how trade can play a key role in adjusting to the changes that will take place in societies over the next decade. 

The Chatham House US and Americas Programme would like to thank founding partner AIG and supporting partners Clifford Chance LLP and Diageo plc for their generous support of the Chatham House Global Trade Policy Forum.

Event attributes

Chatham House Rule

Department/project

US and the Americas Programme, Global Trade Policy Forum

US and Americas Programme


Full Article

cl

Exploring the Obstacles and Opportunities for Expanded UK-Latin American Trade and Investment

By feedproxy.google.com
Published On :: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 12:40:01 +0000

Invitation Only Research Event

14 January 2020 - 8:30am to 11:00am

Chatham House | 10 St James's Square | London | SW1Y 4LE

Trade and investment between the UK and Latin America is woefully underdeveloped. Latin America’s agricultural powerhouses Brazil and Argentina only accounted for a total of 1.6% of the UK’s agricultural market across eight sectors in 2018, all of those areas in which Argentina and Brazil have substantial comparative advantages. 

Conversely, UK exports to the large Latin American economies remain far below their potential.  To cite a few examples, in 2018 in the electrical equipment sector, the UK only exported $95.7 million of those products to Brazil, making the ninth largest economy in the world only the 42nd export market for those goods from the UK; Mexico only imported $91.4 million of UK-made electrical goods, placing it directly behind Brazil as UK’s market for those goods.

As we look to the future, any improvement to the relationship will depend on two factors: 1) how the UK leaves the EU and 2) whether Latin American agricultural producers can improve their environmental practices and can meet the production standards established by the EU and likely maintained by a potential post-Brexit Britain.

In the first meeting of the working group,  Chatham House convened a range of policymakers, practitioners and academics to explore this topic in depth, identify the key issues driving this trend, and begin to consider how improvements might best be made. Subsequent meetings will focus on specific sectors in commerce and investment.

We would like to thank BTG Pactual, Cairn Energy plc, Diageo, Equinor, Fresnillo Management Services, HSBC Holdings plc and Wintershall Dea for their generous support of the Latin America Initiative.

Event attributes

Chatham House Rule

Department/project

US and the Americas Programme, Latin America Initiative

US and Americas Programme


Full Article

cl

Reimagining Trade Rules to Address Climate Change in a Post-Pandemic World

By feedproxy.google.com
Published On :: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 10:25:01 +0000

Webinar Research Event

5 May 2020 - 2:00pm to 3:00pm

Event participants

James Bacchus, Distinguished University Professor of Global Affairs and Director of the Center for Global Economic and Environmental Opportunity at the University of Central Florida; Member and Chair, WTO Appellate Body, 1995 - 2003
Chair: Creon Butler, Director, Global Economy and Finance Programme, Chatham House

This event is part of the Chatham House Global Trade Policy Forum and will take place virtually only.

International trade has a crucial role to play in tackling climate change. The production and transport of goods is a major contributor to green-house gas emissions, as is the delivery of certain cross-border services. At the same time, it looks inevitable that the COVID-19 pandemic will lead to a radical re-think of global supply chains as companies and governments seek to build in greater resilience while at the same time preserving as far as possible the efficiency gains and lower costs that global supply chains generate when operating normally.

Future international trade rules will have a crucial role to play in addressing both challenges; they represent both an opportunity and a risk. If designed well, they could play a very important role in re-enforcing moves towards a more sustainable use of resources, greater overall alignment of economies with the Paris Agreement, and greater economic resilience. But they could also, if poorly designed and implemented, or overly influenced by strategic political considerations, have significant unintended and negative implications. These include: reduced economic efficiency, increased poverty, unnecessary economic decoupling and reduced consensus on the broader mitigation and adaptation measures required to meet the challenge of climate change.

Against this background, a number of key questions arise: In what areas, if any, do we need to modify or adapt key principles underlying the system of global trade rules in order to respond to the twin challenges of responding to climate change and building greater economic resilience?  Which are the most promising/practical areas on which trade policy experts should focus now to re-launch/re-energize discussions on WTO reform, including, for example, dispute settlement? What national economic policies will be needed to complement the development of new/reformed trade disciplines in these areas? How might future political changes, such as a change in the US administration, affect the prospects for and political momentum behind such deliberations? What in any eventuality is the best way to build the required political momentum?
 
This roundtable is convened by the Global Economy and Finance Programme and the US and the Americas Programme and it is part of the Chatham House Global Trade Policy Forum. The event will take place virtually only.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank founding partner AIG and supporting partners Clifford Chance LLP, Diageo plc, and EY for their generous support of the Chatham House Global Trade Policy Forum.

Please note this event is taking place between 2pm to 3pm BST.

Department/project

US and the Americas Programme, Global Trade Policy Forum


Full Article

cl

Ever Closer Alliance? New Developments in Russia-China Relations

By feedproxy.google.com
Published On :: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 13:45:01 +0000

Invitation Only Research Event

11 December 2019 - 9:00am to 1:00pm

Chatham House | 10 St James's Square | London | SW1Y 4LE

Agenda
pdf | 125.8 KB

Event participants

Yang Cheng, Professor of International Relations, Assistant Dean, School of International Relations and Public Affairs, Shanghai International Studies University
Yu Jie, Senior Research Fellow, Asia-Pacific Programme, Chatham House
Marcin Kaczmarski, Lecturer in Security Studies, University of Glasgow
Natasha Kuhrt, Lecturer, Department of War Studies, King’s College London
Bobo Lo, Non-Resident Fellow, Lowy Institute
Alexey Maslov, Professor, School of Asian Studies, National Research University, Higher School of Economics, Moscow

At face value, recent years have seen a deepening in Sino-Russian cooperation, from energy agreements, to the recent Huawei-MTS deal developing a 5G network in Russia. Ever larger-in-scale joint military exercises add to fears by some that the 'axis of convenience' is now a more genuine – and threatening – partnership.

This workshop will offer a sober assessment of the latest developments in Sino-Russian relations, shedding light on the underpinnings and practical realities of the relationship as well as on the long-term challenges of upholding cooperation.

The panel will discuss the different and potentially diverging interpretations of contemporary Sino-Russian relations as well as the implications for the rules-based international order.

This event is co-organized by the Chatham House Russia and Eurasia Programme and the University of Exeter and is supported by the British International Studies Association.

Attendance at this event is by invitation only. 

Department/project

Asia-Pacific Programme, Russia and Eurasia Programme

Anna Morgan

Administrator, Ukraine Forum
+44 (0)20 7389 3274


Full Article

cl

Screening Room: Parts of a Circle - History of the Karabakh Conflict

By feedproxy.google.com
Published On :: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 15:55:01 +0000

Members Event

18 February 2020 - 6:00pm to 8:00pm

Chatham House | 10 St James's Square | London | SW1Y 4LE

Event participants

Jenny Norton, Producer, Parts of a Circle: History of the Karabakh Conflict
Famil Ismayilov, Journalist
Leon Aslanov, Middle East Analyst, Integrity UK
Chair: Laurence Broers, Associate Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Programme, Chatham House; Director, Caucasus Programme, Conciliation Resources

Once an autonomous region populated mainly by Armenians in Soviet Azerbaijan, Nagorny Karabakh, is a contested territory in the Caucasus. Since the late 1980s, its contested status has driven popular mobilization among Armenians and Azerbaijanis and an all-out war between 1992-94. After a quarter-century of enmity and military build-up, in 2019, Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders agreed to ‘prepare their populations for peace’ but how would this work in practice?

Parts of a Circle: History of the Karabakh Conflict (2019) chronicles the disputed history of the decades-old conflict between Armenians and Azerbaijanis. Supported by the European Union and based on a series of three documentary films jointly produced over four years by Armenian and Azerbaijani production teams, the film showcases journalistic cooperation in bridging societies in conflict.

The screening was followed by a panel discussion that will explore the state of the conflict and the efforts to end it. Why have efforts to resolve the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia not been successful? How can both sides build grassroot support for peace after years of fomenting hatred? And what can the international community do in support?

A short film about the making of the documentary can be seen here.

Members Events Team


Full Article

cl

Nuclear Tensions Must Not Be Sidelined During Coronavirus

By feedproxy.google.com
Published On :: Fri, 01 May 2020 11:18:35 +0000

1 May 2020

Ana Alecsandru

Research Assistant, International Security Programme
Although the pandemic means the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference (RevCon) is postponed, the delay could be an opportunity to better the health of the NPT regime.

2020-05-01-Iran-Peace-Nuclear

Painted stairs in Tehran, Iran symbolizing hope. Photo by Fatemeh Bahrami/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images.

Despite face-to-face diplomatic meetings being increasingly rare during the current disruption, COVID-19 will ultimately force a redefinition of national security and defence spending priorities, and this could provide the possibility of an improved political climate at RevCon when it happens in 2021.

With US presidential elections due in November and a gradual engagement growing between the EU and Iran, there could be a new context for more cooperation between states by 2021. Two key areas of focus over the coming months will be the arms control talks between the United States and Russia, and Iran’s compliance with the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran Nuclear Deal.

It is too early to discern the medium- and longer-term consequences of COVID-19 for defence ministries, but a greater focus on societal resilience and reinvigorating economic productivity will likely undercut the rationale for expensive nuclear modernization.

Therefore, extending the current New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) would be the best, most practical option to give both Russia and the United States time to explore more ambitious multilateral arms control measures, while allowing their current focus to remain on the pandemic and economic relief.

Continuing distrust

But with the current treaty — which limits nuclear warheads, missiles, bombers, and launchers — due to expire in February 2021, the continuing distrust between the United States and Russia makes this extension hard to achieve, and a follow-on treaty even less likely.

Prospects for future bilateral negotiations are hindered by President Donald Trump’s vision for a trilateral arms control initiative involving both China and Russia. But China opposes this on the grounds that its nuclear arsenal is far smaller than that of the two others.

While there appears to be agreement that the nuclear arsenals of China, France, and the UK (the NPT nuclear-weapons states) and those of the states outside the treaty (India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel) will all have to be taken into account going forward, a practical mechanism for doing so proves elusive.

If Joe Biden wins the US presidency he seems likely to pursue an extension of the New START treaty and could also prevent a withdrawal from the Open Skies treaty, the latest arms control agreement targeted by the Trump administration.

Under a Biden administration, the United States would also probably re-join the JCPOA, provided Tehran returned to strict compliance with the deal. Biden could even use the team that negotiated the Iran deal to advance the goal of denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.

For an NPT regime already confronted by a series of longstanding divergences, it is essential that Iran remains a signatory especially as tensions between Iran and the United States have escalated recently — due to the Qassim Suleimani assassination and the recent claim by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps to have successfully placed the country’s first military satellite into orbit.

This announcement raised red flags among experts about whether Iran is developing intercontinental ballistic missiles due to the dual-use nature of space technology. The satellite launch — deeply troubling for Iran’s neighbours and the EU countries — may strengthen the US argument that it is a cover for the development of ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons.

However, as with many other countries, Iran is struggling with a severe coronavirus crisis and will be pouring its scientific expertise and funds into that rather than other efforts — including the nuclear programme.

Those European countries supporting the trading mechanism INSTEX (Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges) for sending humanitarian goods into Iran could use this crisis to encourage Iran to remain in compliance with the JCPOA and its NPT obligations.

France, Germany and the UK (the E3) have already successfully concluded the first transaction, which was to facilitate the export of medical goods from Europe to Iran. But the recent Iranian escalatory steps will most certainly place a strain on the preservation of this arrangement.

COVID-19 might have delayed Iran’s next breach of the 2015 nuclear agreement but Tehran will inevitably seek to strengthen its hand before any potential negotiations with the United States after the presidential elections.

As frosty US-Iranian relations — exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic — prevent diplomatic negotiations, this constructive engagement between the E3 and Iran might prove instrumental in reviving the JCPOA and ensuring Iran stays committed to both nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.

While countries focus their efforts on tackling the coronavirus pandemic, it is understandable resources may be limited for other global challenges, such as the increasing risk of nuclear weapons use across several regions.

But the potential ramifications of the COVID-19 crisis for the NPT regime are profound. Ongoing tensions between the nuclear-armed states must not be ignored while the world’s focus is elsewhere, and the nuclear community should continue to work together to progress nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, building bridges of cooperation and trust that can long outlast the pandemic.


Full Article

cl

Closet

By kolembo.wordpress.com
Published On :: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 19:41:31 +0000

Quantum physics dictates that Looked at directly matter will disappear. Big physics says that electrons can be bound, Entangled, still Unified theory does not allow multiple existences. These are matters of the heart; Sometimes looking at love directly can destroy it, And we don’t want lovers disappearing, To burnt, brawny, Ulaanbaatar without us, we Want […]


Full Article

cl

Cli·ché

By kolembo.wordpress.com
Published On :: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 19:35:37 +0000

We garden together, He and I, Uprooting rocks, chiseling Fuchsia, We, Argue a lot, and; Framing roses in gold, morning light or, Flaming red sunset, Helps cool raging fires. Birds join us when we are not too loud, Sipping iridescent water from clay pots, Serenading nectar onto rhamphothecae; We squash fat slugs accidentally, And bitterness. […]


Full Article

cl

Unlocking Finance for Clean Energy: The Need for 'Investment Grade' Policy

By feedproxy.google.com
Published On :: Mon, 09 May 2011 07:50:50 +0000

1 December 2009

Kirsty Hamilton

Associate Fellow, Energy, Environment and Resources Programme

As the international community looks to the period beyond the UN Copenhagen agreements on climate change, attention is focusing on the finance for implementing global emissions reductions on the ground. The requirement for significantly scaled-up investment into the solutions to climate change is a central issue, often characterized as investment flows into 'low carbon technologies'.

This paper draws on five years of insights from mainstream financiers leading the exponential growth in renewable energy investment, and key issues for policy-makers seeking to foster conditions for even greater investment are identified.

Related documents

Programme Paper - Unlocking Finance for Clean Energy
pdf | 320.15 KB

Department/project

Energy, Environment and Resources Programme


Full Article

cl

How to Manage Ash Clouds

By feedproxy.google.com
Published On :: Wed, 25 May 2011 21:03:26 +0000

23 May 2011

Felix Preston

Former Senior Research Fellow and Deputy Research Director, Energy, Environment and Resources

The Eyjafjallajökull ash cloud of 2010 exposed serious weaknesses in the ability of governments across Europe to prepare for an aviation crisis and implement effective responses.

One year on considerable efforts have been made to improve scientific understanding, reform the risk management approach and improve coordination at the European level. A major scenario exercise in April this year even took Grimsvötn - the volcano now erupting - as its case study. Successful management of this eruption would have five characteristics:

European countries take a consistent approach

In 2010, European countries made different decisions, based on the same scientific advice, leading to widespread confusion. This is the first test of a new set of guidelines which allows planes to fly in low and medium concentrations of ash, and puts much of the risk assessment decision-making in the hands of the airlines. Ultimately, the responsibility for aviation safety remains with individual countries. Yet a single Europe-wide system for submitting the safety assessments is not yet in place, and Eurocontrol has confirmed that some European states are not yet ready to implement the new approach - especially those who did not take part in the recent scenario exercise.

Decision-making is decisive and transparent at European level

Last time round, European-level organisations took a back seat for nearly a week. A clear structure of decision making across key bodies must emerge if public confidence in decision making is to be maintained - including Eurocontrol, the European Aviation Safety Agency and the European Commission. Coordination will be undertaken through the European Aviation Crisis Coordination Cell (EACCC), an emergency mechanism that has been activated for the first time since Eyjafjallajökull. Transparency at European level is another key test. The detailed remit and composition of the EACCC - including the level of industry participation - remains cloudy.

The aviation industry supports the best available scientific information

The accuracy of Met Office ash maps was a major point of contention between airlines and engine manufacturers on the one hand, and aviation safety regulators on the other. A new ash measuring station in Iceland (still undergoing calibration) and refinements to the modelling has reduced uncertainty, but this can never be an exact science. Tension should have been reduced by the shift of responsibility towards airlines.

Governments provide clear information to the public

Scientific and technology uncertainty is notoriously difficult to communicate, especially when it comes to articulating risks and probability. Yet this is crucial to maintain public confidence in evidence-based decision making. During the last crisis, there was scant public defence of the precautionary principles or safety.

Governments also failed to establish a clear public understanding of passengers' rights when flights are delayed. Instead the media discourse was dominated by airlines duelling through the airwaves to step up pressure to remove the flight ban. Already, it is clear that stakeholders have chosen very different media strategies to last time - notably Eurocontrol which has been lauded online for its activity on social media.

The knock-on consequences of the disruption are managed effectively

A prolonged disruption to aviation would have widespread economic and social impacts. How to manage these impacts has received much less attention over the last twelve months than the issue of when to fly in ash. If Grimsvötn erupts for longer than currently anticipated, similar challenges for cross-border transport management will emerge, followed by questions about appropriate state support for struggling businesses.


Full Article

cl

Throw nothing away. It's time to upcycle

By feedproxy.google.com
Published On :: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 13:21:16 +0000

1 April 2012 , Volume 68, Number 2

In the circular economy nothing is wasted. Repair, not replace, is the byword. Felix Preston on a 30-year-old idea whose day is about to dawn

Felix Preston

Former Senior Research Fellow and Deputy Research Director, Energy, Environment and Resources

Preston.jpg

Photo: AP Photo/Keystone, Walter Bieri


Full Article

cl

Climate Change 2012

By feedproxy.google.com
Published On :: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:09:19 +0000

Conference

Security, resilience and diplomacy

15 October 2012 - 9:30am to 16 October 2012 - 5:00pm

Chatham House, London

Overview

Speakers

Press registration

Sponsors

Media partners

Venue and accommodation

Agenda

The 16th Annual Chatham House conference on climate change will assess what national and international actions must be taken now to manage 21st century climate security challenges. Although disunity remains over how to manage the climate challenge, there is agreement that action is now needed to adapt to the impacts of climate change that can no longer be prevented and to build resilience against the impact of extreme climate events.

The conference will examine the key economic, social and geo-political security threats caused by climate change and debate what national and international responses are required to manage these security challenges.

Key issues that will be addressed include:

  • What will be the impact of climate change on border shifts, migration, health, security of critical infrastructure and competition for natural resources?
  • Is there a role for geoengineering in managing climate?  If so, what would be the impact on international climate action?
  • What has been achieved between Durban and Doha and what are the goals for the 2012 UN talks?
  • How will essential climate change mitigation and adaptation be financed?

Suggested Twitter hashtag: #CHClimate

  • Rt Hon Edward Davey

    • Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change

  • Christiana Figueres

    • Executive Secretary

  • Connie Hedegaard

    • European Commissioner for Climate Action

  • Dieter Helm CBE

    • Professor of Energy Policy

  • Graham van’t Hoff

    • Chairman and Executive Vice President, CO2 and Alternative Energies

  • The Honourable Peter Kent

    • Minister of the Environment

  • Dr David N Bresch

    • Head Sustainability & Political Risk Management

  • Viktor Elbling

    • Director General for Economic Affairs and Sustainable Development

  • Antony Froggatt

    • Senior Research Fellow, Energy, Environment and Resource Governance

  • Richard Gledhill

    • Global Leader, Climate Change and Carbon Market Services

  • Professor Michael Grubb

    • Senior Research Associate, Faculty of Economics

  • Professor Debarati Guha-Sapir

    • Director

  • Professor Zhang Haibin

    • School of International Studies

  • Shahidul Haque

    • Former Director, International Cooperation and Partnership

  • Ambassador Richard H Jones

    • Deputy Executive Director

  • Bernice Lee

    • Research Director, Energy, Environment and Resources Governance

  • Nick Mabey

    • Chief Executive

  • Oliver Morton

    • Briefings Editor

  • Professor Virginia Murray

    • Head of Extreme Events

  • Richard Myungi

    • Vice President's Office, Division of Environment, Tanzania

  • Cleo Paskal

    • Associate Research Fellow

  • Dr Steve Rayner

    • Director

  • Dr David Santillo

    • Chief Scientist

  • Dr Jamie Shea

    • Deputy Assistant Secretary General, Emerging Security Challenges Division

  • Dan Smith OBE

    • Secretary General

  • Jack Stilgoe

    • Senior Lecturer, Science and Technology Studies

  • Thomas Stocker

    • Professor of Climate and Environmental Physics, University of Bern, Switzerland and

This conference will be held under the Chatham House Rule. Information for journalists
Press can request a press pass using the form below.

If you are interested in becoming a sponsor for this event, please contact Simone Roberts.

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 


 

 


 

Venue

Chatham House

conferences@chathamhouse.org

Telephone: +44 (0)20 7957 5729
Fax: +44 (0)20 7957 5710


If you wish to book the venue for your event please phone +44 (0)20 7314 2764


Conference Unit
Chatham House
10 St James's Square
London
SW1Y 4LE
UK

 

Accommodation

Although we cannot book accommodation for delegates, we have arranged a reduced rate at some nearby hotels, where you can book your own accommodation. Please inform the hotel that you will be attending a conference at Chatham House (The Royal Institute of International Affairs) to qualify for the Institute's reduced rate.

Please note all rates are subject to availability.

Flemings Mayfair
Half Moon Street
Mayfair
London W1Y 7RA
Tel: + 44 (0)20 7499 2964
Fax: + 44 (0)20 7499 1817
Standard Single £180 + VAT

The Cavendish London
81 Jermyn Street
London
SW1U 6JF
Tel: + 44 (0)20 7930 2111
Fax: + 44 (0)20 7839 2125
Standard Single £200 + VAT

To book The Cavendish online

The Stafford London by Kempinski
St James's Place
London 
SW1A 1NJ
Tel: 020 7518 1125 
Fax: 020 7493 7121
Standard Single £230 +VAT
 

Day One, Monday 15 October

Climate Risk: The Science

  • What are the current climate impacts and which regions are most affected?
  • What are current long term climate forecasts? What temperature rise is the world realistically on track for?
  • What will be the impact of a 2˚ degree increase in temperatures on sea levels, weather patterns, and frequency and severity of high impact weather events? On food and water security?
  • What would be the impact on these of a 4˚ increase in temperature?

09.30     Chair
Bernice Lee OBE
Research Director, Energy, Environment and Resources
Chatham House

Professor Thomas Stocker
Co-Chair WGI
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
 
Questions & discussion

10.00    Keynote Speaker (on the record)
Connie Hedegaard
European Commissioner for Climate Action
European Commission

Questions & discussion

Session One
Security and Climate Change

  • What will be the greatest national and international challenges arising from climate change?
  • Examining the key issues about extreme events, disasters and climate change outlined in the IPCC Special Report for Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX)
  • What the UK is doing on the Climate Change Risk Assessment
  • To what extent do health, social, economic and critical infrastructural assets need to be adapted to respond to these emerging threats? 
  • How should countries be preparing for the increased potential for climate related conflict?

Chair  Cleo Paskal
Associate Fellow
Chatham House

10.30 Speakers
Cleo Paskal

Dan Smith OBE
Secretary General
International Alert

Prof Virginia Murray
Head of Extreme Events
Health Protection Agency, UK

Questions and discussion

11.50 - 12.20     Refreshments


Session Two
International Climate Change Policy

  • What progress has there been on key points in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process after the 2011 Durban meeting and before Doha in 2012?
  • What new alignments have emerged from the international climate talks?
  • What are the proposed approaches for enhancing mitigation ambition?
  • What are the key outcomes from the first session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action?
  • How effective is carbon trading as a tool for reducing global carbon emissions?

Chair  Bernice Lee OBE
Research Director, Energy, Environment and Resources
Chatham House

12.20    Keynote Speaker (on the record)
Christiana Figueres
Executive Secretary
UNFCCC

Questions & discussion

12.50    Keynote Discussion (on the record)
The Honourable Peter Kent
Minister of the Environment
Canada
   
Graham van’t Hoff
Chairman Shell UK
Executive Vice President, CO2 and Alternative Energies

Dieter Helm CBE
Professor of Energy Policy
University of Oxford

13.30     Lunch

14.30    Keynote Speaker (on the record)
Rt Hon Edward Davey
Secretary of State
Department of Energy and Climate Change, UK

Questions & discussion


Session Three
Technology, Public Attitudes, Energy and Climate Change

Energy production and use is responsible for the largest share of the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Consequently, energy remains the main focus of public policy and media attention on climate change, but despite this significant parts of the public are confused as to the impacts of different technologies and their own roles and responsibilities.

  • What are the different CO2 mitigation technologies and strategies being considered nationally and internationally? How viable are different approaches and what are the funding models?
  • To what extent will public attitudes towards different CO2 mitigation strategies drive energy policy?
  • How does the media influence public attitudes and behavior?


Chair  Richard Gledhill
Partner, Global Leader Climate Change
PricewaterhouseCoopers

15.00    Speakers
Ambassador Richard H. Jones
Deputy Executive Director
International Energy Agency

Antony Froggatt
Senior Research Fellow, Energy, Environment and Resource Governance
Chatham House

Professor Michael Grubb
Senior Research Associate, Faculty of Economics
University of Cambridge

Questions and discussion

15.50-16.20 Refreshments


Session Four
A Radical Solution
Could geoengineering be a useful tool for moderating climate change?

  • How viable is geo engineering as a strategy for controlling climate? What are the scientific concerns around manipulation of the world’s ecosystem?
  • What are the key policy responses towards geo-engineering techniques for manipulating the climate?
  • How realistic are fears that geoengineering could be weaponized and how could this issue be tackled?
  • Will geoengineering be used as a justification of continuation of business as usual?

Panel Discussion

Moderator
Oliver Morton
Briefings Editor
The Economist

16.20   Panelists
Dr Jack Stilgoe
Senior Lecturer, Department of Science and Technology Studies
University College London

Dr Steve Rayner
Director
Institute for Science, Innovation and Society

Dr David Santillo
Chief Scientist
Greenpeace

17.20    End of day one and drinks reception hosted by Chatham House

 

DAY TWO
Tuesday 16 October

Session Five
National Action on Climate and Security Implications

This session will examine the extent to which extent political and business leaders are focusing on climate related security issues at national level.

  • What actions do cities and countries need to take to ensure that critical infrastructure including transport, energy, water and IT remain protected from the threats associated with rising sea levels and flooding?
  • How should health services strengthen capabilities to assess, plan for and respond to current and projected climate related threats?
  • What further resilience measures do countries need to invest in? How should governments balance the costs of resilience with the costs of response, and who should pay?
  • How can the private sector be engaged in improving national resilience and developing adaptation strategies?


09.30    Chair
Cleo Paskal
Associate Fellow
Chatham House

 

Speakers
Prof Zhang Haibin
School of International Studies
Peking University

Prof Debarati Guha-Sapir
Director
WHO Collaborating Centre for Research on Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) 

Dr David N Bresch
Head of Sustainability
Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd

Questions and discussion

10.45-11.15    Refreshments
 

Session Six
Adapting to a Changing World
Strategic responses to climate change at international level

This session will assess the requirements and challenges of coordinating international responses to climate threats. What adaptive strategies are being explored and how will they be financed?

  • How can governments and business minimize global disruption from ‘black swan’ climate events?
  • What effective regional initiatives for regional and global resilience and security are in place?
  • How much investment in adaptation is needed, and where will funding come from?
  • What is the role of the private sector in funding adaptation activities?
  • What is the role for international climate and resource policy and diplomacy?

11.15   Chair
Nick Mabey
Chief Executive
E3G

Panel Discussion
Bernice Lee
Research Director, Energy, Environment and Resources Governance
Chatham House

Shahidul Haque
Former Director, International Cooperation and Partnership
International Organization for Migration (IOM)

Viktor Elbling
Director General for Economic Affairs and Sustainable Development
German Federal Foreign Office

Richard Myungi
Vice President's Office, Division of Environment, Tanzania
and first Chairman and LDC Board Member, Global Climate Change Adaptation Fund

Dr. Jamie Shea
Deputy Assistant Secretary General, Emerging Security Challenges Division
NATO

 

Questions and discussion

13.00    Lunch and end of conference

© The Royal Institute of International Affairs, 2012
 


Full Article

cl

The UK's Vision for Tackling Climate Change

By feedproxy.google.com
Published On :: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:32:40 +0000

1 July 2012

Chatham House

This is a transcript of a speech made by Ed Davey MP, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, on 11 July 2012 at Chatham House.

In his first keynote speech on the subject, the Secretary of State outlined his vision for ambitious action on climate change.

Event details.

Related documents

Transcript - Ed Davey MP
pdf | 110.21 KB

Department/project

Energy, Environment and Resources Programme


Full Article

cl

Delivering Concrete Climate Change Action

By feedproxy.google.com
Published On :: Tue, 14 May 2013 11:06:32 +0000

Conference

Towards 2015

21 October 2013 - 9:30am to 22 October 2013 - 3:30pm

Chatham House, London

Overview

Speakers

Press registration

Sponsors

Media partners

Venue and accommodation

Agenda

Audience profile

Over the past five years, the political conditions for a global agreement on climate change have shifted. There is today growing consensus that responding to a changing climate will require multi-level collaboration and new alliances.

In the run-up to the deadline for a new international climate change agreement in 2015, the 17th Annual Chatham House Conference on Climate Change will focus on workable solutions that will help accelerate global decarbonization.

This conference will ask:

  • What will a global deal in 2015 look like? What are the key components of a shared vision? What elements do developing and developed countries need in order to reach agreement?

  • How can the emerging international climate change regime – comprising voluntary partnerships, formal negotiations and business coalitions – deliver the necessary reductions in greenhouse gas emissions?

  • To what extent will new energy realities affect the politics of climate change?

  • What practical lessons can be learned from existing carbon mitigation and adaptation policies?

  • How can the international community harness progressive leadership?

Registration

  • Michael Anderson

    • Chief Executive Officer

  • The Rt Hon Gregory Barker MP

    • Minister of State for Energy and Climate Change

  • Frances Beinecke

    • President

  • Tim Benton

    • UK Champion for Global Food Security and Professor of Population Ecology

  • Sam Bickersteth

    • Chief Executive

  • Tony De Brum

    • Minister-in-Assistance to the President

  • Giles Dickson

    • VP Environmental Policies and Global Advocacy

  • Reid Detchon

    • Vice President, Energy and Climate

  • Alfred Evans

    • Chief Executive Officer

  • Christiana Figueres

    • Executive Secretary

  • Marcin Korolec

    • Minister of Environment, Poland

  • Kate Hampton

    • Executive Director, Climate Change

  • Cameron Hepburn

    • Professor of environmental economics, Smith School and INET at Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, and

  • David Hone

    • Climate Change Advisor

  • Pa Ousman Jarju

    • Special Envoy for Climate Change

  • Sir David King

    • Foreign Secretary’s Special Representative for Climate Change

  • Martin Khor

    • Director

  • Johan Kuylenstierna

    • Deputy-Director, Stockholm Environment Institute

  • James Leaton

    • Project Director

  • Bernice Lee

    • Research Director, Energy, Environment and Resources

  • Nick Mabey

    • Chief Executive Officer

  • Amina Mohammed

    • Special Adviser on Post-2015 Development Planning

  • Jennifer Morgan

    • Director of the Climate and Energy Program

  • Admiral Neil Morisetti

    • Foreign Secretary’s Special Representative for Climate Change

  • Mutsuyoshi Nishimura

    • Visiting Research Fellow, Japan Institute of International affairs

  • Dr Atiur Rahman

    • Governor

  • John Schellnhuber

    • Founding Director

  • Todd Stern

    • Special Envoy for Climate Change

  • Kelly Rigg

    • Executive Director

  • Laurence Tubiana

    • Director

  • Fraser Thompson

    • Senior Fellow

  • Dominic Waughray

    • Senior Director and Head of Environmental Initiatives

  • Farhana Yamin

    • Associate Fellow

This conference will be held under the Chatham House Rule. Information for journalists
Press can request a press pass using the form below.

If you are interested in becoming a sponsor for this event, please contact George Woodhams on +44 (0)20 7957 5732 or email gwoodhams@chathamhouse.org.


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Venue

Chatham House

conferences@chathamhouse.org

Telephone: +44 (0)20 7957 5729
Fax: +44 (0)20 7957 5710


If you wish to book the venue for your event please phone +44 (0)20 7314 2764


Conference Unit
Chatham House
10 St James's Square
London
SW1Y 4LE
UK


Accommodation

Although we cannot book accommodation for delegates, we have arranged a reduced rate at some nearby hotels, where you can book your own accommodation. Please inform the hotel that you will be attending a conference at Chatham House (The Royal Institute of International Affairs) to qualify for the Institute's reduced rate.

Please note all rates are subject to availability.

Flemings Mayfair
Half Moon Street
Mayfair
London W1Y 7RA
Tel: + 44 (0)20 7499 2964
Fax: + 44 (0)20 7499 1817
Standard Single £190 + VAT

The Cavendish London
81 Jermyn Street
London
SW1U 6JF
Tel: + 44 (0)20 7930 2111
Fax: + 44 (0)20 7839 2125
Standard Single £205 + VAT

To book The Cavendish online

The Stafford London by Kempinski
St James's Place
London
SW1A 1NJ
Tel: 020 7518 1125
Fax: 020 7493 7121
Standard Single £230 +VAT

Monday 21 October 2013

Session One
Bridging the Gap Between Science and Policy
09:00 - 10:10

  • What are the latest findings from climate science and the IPCC? 
  • Is the world on track for global decarbonisation? Is dangerous anthropogenic climate change avoidable?
  • To what extent are future climate risks sufficiently incorporated into policy thinking or investment strategies?

Welcome Address
Bernice Lee, Research Director, Energy, Environment and Resources, Chatham House

Chair
Michael Anderson, Chief Executive Officer, Children’s Investment Fund Foundation  

Keynote Address
Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Founding Director, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)

Speakers
Professor Tim Benton, UK Champion for Global Food Security and Professor of Population Ecology, Leeds University

Sir David King, Foreign Secretary’s Special Representative for Climate Change

Questions and Discussion

10:10 - 10:40   Refreshments

Session Two
Global Deal in 2015: Challenges and Prospects
10:40 - 12:40

  • What will a global deal in 2015 look like? Will there be specific targets or non-binding sets of approaches? What are the building blocks?
  • What is the value and track record of different kind of climate initiatives? For example, how successful are formal agreements compared to voluntary partnerships; climate-driven aid; or business coalitions? 
  • What are the main functions and institutions of the evolving international climate regime? What is the role of the UNFCCC? Is reform an option given the timeframe? What is the role for groupings like the G20 or the G8?

Chair
Bernice Lee, Research Director, Energy, Environment and Resources, Chatham House
 
Keynote Addresses
Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (on the record)

Marcin Korolec, Minister of Environment, Poland and President, COP 19, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

Questions and Discussion

Speakers
Nick Mabey, Chief Executive Officer, E3G

Farhana Yamin, Associate Fellow, Chatham House

Laurence Tubiana, Director, The Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI)

Questions and Discussion

1240 - 14:00   Lunch

Chair
Bernice Lee, Research Director, Energy, Environment and Resources, Chatham House

Keynote Address
Gregory Barker, Minister of State for Energy and Climate Change, United Kingdom (on the record)

Questions and Discussion

Session Three
Climate-Resilient Development: Views from Developing Countries
14:30 - 16:10

  • What are the drivers of domestic climate action in developing countries?
  • What do developing countries need from the international climate regime: e.g. with respect to finance, ‘loss and damage’ and disaster preparedness? 
  • How will the politics among developing countries evolve? Has the G77 been eclipsed by the emergence of BASIC and other developing country alliances?

Chair
Sam Bickersteth, Chief Executive, The Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN)

Keynote Addresses
Dr Atiur Rahman, Governor, Bangladesh Bank

Senator Tony deBrum, Minister-in-Assistance to the President, Republic of Marshall Islands

Questions and Discussion

Speakers
Martin Khor, Director, South Centre

Pa Ousman Jarju, Special Envoy for Climate Change, Republic of the Gambia

Questions and Discussion

16:10 - 16:30    Refreshments

Session Four
Preparing for 2015: The Role of Major Economies
16:30 - 17:30

  • Do countries have clear understandings of how climate risks will reshape their national interests? How will these risks affect other agendas e.g. future economic competitiveness, resource security, public health, foreign policy, or disaster preparedness?
  • How will major countries manage competing domestic priorities when preparing their national positions in the run-up to 2015? What is the evolving trilateral US-China-EU dynamic? Can the EU provide the necessary leadership?
  • Are national investment systems capable of scaling up financing to deliver climate action in key countries like US, EU, China and India?

Chair
Bernice Lee, Research Director, Energy, Environment and Resources, Chatham House

Speakers
David Hone, Climate Change Adviser, Shell

Jennifer Morgan, Director of the Climate and Energy Program, World Resources Institute 

Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti, Foreign Secretary’s Special Representative for Climate Change, United Kingdon

Mutsuyoshi Nishimura,  Visiting Research Fellow, Japan Institute of International affairs and Former Special Adviser to the Cabinet in charge of Climate Change, Japan 

Questions and Discussion

17:30 End of day one and drinks reception hosted by Chatham House


DAY TWO
Tuesday 22 October
09:30 - 15:10

Session Five
The Changing Global Energy Landscape: Implications for Decarbonization
09:30 - 10:45

  • What are the implications of the ‘golden age of gas’? What will growing coal use in many developing economies mean for climate politics?
  • What is the prospect for scaling up renewable investments – given the lessons learned vis-à-vis the scale, speed and cost of low carbon technologies over the past five years?
  • What are the contributions of off-grid, distributive generation and other demand side measures like efficiency?

Chair
David Hone, Climate Change Adviser, Shell

Moderated Panel Discussion
Reid Detchon, Vice President for Energy and Climate, United Nations Foundation

Giles Dickson, Vice President, Environmental Policies & Global Advocacy, Alstom 

Antony Froggatt, Senior Research Fellow, Chatham House

Questions and Discussion

10:45 - 11:15     Refreshments

Session Six
Climate Policy and Finance: The Emerging Toolkit
11:15 - 12:30

  • What is the track record of policies and measures to tackle CO2 emissions – from carbon markets, standards and subsidies removal to taxation? What is the progress on tackling non-CO2 greenhouse gases? 
  • The cost of climate impacts has been escalating. What are the emerging tools (e.g. disaster preparedness, climate-proof aid or insurance) for managing the impacts? 

  • What is the role of public versus private finance for different countries? What is the role of multilateral financing institutions in facilitating the increasingly large finance flows required?

Chair
Cameron Hepburn, Professor of Environmental Economics, Smith School and INET at Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, and Professorial Research Fellow at the Grantham Research Institute at the LSE

Speakers
Dr Johan Kuylenstierna, Deputy- Director, Stockholm Environment Institute, University of York

Cameron Hepburn, Professor of environmental economics, Smith School and INET at Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, and Professorial Research Fellow at the Grantham Research Institute at the LSE

James Leaton, Project Director, Carbon Tracker 

Fraser Thompson, Senior Fellow, McKinsey Global Institute

Questions and Discussion

12:30 -13:30    Lunch

13.:30 -14:00

Chair
Bernice Lee, Research Director, Energy, Environment and Resources, Chatham House

Keynote Address
Todd Stern, Special Envoy for Climate Change, United States Department of State

Questions and Discussion

Session Seven
Building the Progressive Conditions for 2015
14:00 - 15:10

  • Can the international community harness progressive leadership – through coalitions of governments, businesses and/or NGOs? 
  • What are the political or mobilisation strategies needed to tackle domestic climate scepticism, build progressive coalitions and neutralise vested interests at different levels? 
  • What are the implications of the post-2015 development discussions for climate change? 

Chair
Dominic Waughray, Senior Director, Head of Environmental Initiatives, World Economic Forum

Moderated Panel Discussion
Frances Beinecke, President, Natural Resources Defense Council 

Alfred Evans, Chief Executive Officer, Climate Change Capital

Kate Hampton, Executive Director, Climate Change, Children's Investment Fund Foundation 

Amina Mohammed, Special Adviser on Post-2015 Development Planning, United Nations

Questions and Discussion

15:10 Close of Conference


© The Royal Institute of International Affairs 2013

This conference will offer a unique opportunity to network with senior officials from businesses, government, NGO's and academic institutions.

Our previous Climate Change conferences saw delegates from companies and institutions such as:

Accenture
AEA Energy & Environment
Agulhas
ArcelorMittal
Association of Asia Pacific Airlines (AAPA)
Atkins Ltd
BASF plc
Bayerngas Norge AS
Beetle Capital
BG Group plc
BHP Billiton
BIRA-IASB
Booz & Co
BP plc
British Council
BT Group plc
Cairn Energy plc
Cambridge Centre for Energy Studies
Cambridge Programme for Sustainable Leadership
Carbon Capture and Storage Association
Carbon Leapfrog
Carbon Trust
Caritas Internationalis
Catholic Fund for Overseas Development (CAFOD)
CH2M Hill
Chamber of Shipping
Chevron Ltd
Chubu Electric Power Co Inc
ClientEarth
Clifford Chance LLP
Climate & Development Knowledge Network (CDKN)
Climate Action Network (CAN)
Climate and Health Council
Climate Secure
Coalition for an International Court for the Environment (ICE Coalition)
Compassion in World Farming (CIWF)
Conocophillips (UK) Ltd
Control Risks
Co-operative Group
Cranfield University
Deloitte Consulting LLP
Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS)
Department for International Development (DFID)
Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC)
Ecofys UK Ltd
Ecologic Institute
EDF Energy
Energy Charter Secretariat
Energy Technologies Institute
Eni S.p.A
Environment Agency
Environmental Law Foundation (ELF)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Environmental Resources Management (ERM)
ENWORKS
Ernst & Young
Ethical Investment Research Services Ltd (EIRIS)
European Bank For Reconstruction & Development
European Commission (Directorate General for Enterprise and Industry)
European Parliament
ExxonMobil International Ltd
Fauna & Flora International
FIA Foundation for the Automobile and Society
Finnish Forest Association
Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO)
Forestry Commission
Friends of the Earth
Genesis Investment Management LLP
GLG Partners LP
Global CCS Institute
Global Humanitarian Forum
Global Sustainability Institute
Global Witness
Globeleq Ltd
Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, LSE
Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce
Greenpeace International
Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
HM Treasury
Imperial College London
INPEX Corporation
Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR)
Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC)
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
International Council on Mining and Metals
International Finance Corporation (IFC)
International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO)
Joseph Rowntree Foundation
JPMorgan
King's College London
KPMG
Kuwait Petroleum Corporation
London Assembly
London Metropolitan University
London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)
Maersk Group
Massey University
McKinsey & Company
METREX
Ministere des Affaires Etrangeres, France
Ministry of Defence (Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Netherlands
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Finland
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Poland
Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment
Mitsubishi Corporation
National Farmers' Union
National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy
Netherlands Development Finance Company (FMO)
NEXUS Singapore
Office of National Assessments
Ogilvy
Open Society Foundation
Overseas Development Institute (ODI)
Oxford University
Plan UK
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Privy Council Office
Progressio
Quaker Peace and Social Witness
Québec Government Office
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP)
Renewable Energy Systems Ltd (RES)
Rolls-Royce International Ltd
RWE Power AG
Save the Children UK
SCA, Svenska Cellulosa Aktiebolaget
School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS)
Standard Chartered Bank plc
Statoil (UK) Ltd
SustainAbility Ltd
Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI)
Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation SDC
Task Consult
Texas A&M University
The 40 Foundation
The Climate Group
The Gold Standard Foundation
The Norwegian Institute for Nature Research
The Open University
The Prince of Wales Corporate Leader Group
The Royal Society
The Saudi Fund For Development
Tokyo Electric Power Company
Total Holdings UK Ltd
UK Chamber of Shipping
UK Collaborative on Development Sciences (UKCDS)
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
University College London (UCL)
University of Cambridge
University of East Anglia (School of Environmental Sciences)
University of Edinburgh
University of Oxford (Department of Politics and International Relations)
US Department of State
USAID
Warwick Business School
WaterAid
World Coal Association
World Coal Institute
World Economic Forum
World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA)
World Vision UK
WWF-UK
Xynteo Ltd
Yorkshire Forward


Full Article

cl

Climate Change: Raising Ambition, Delivering Results

By feedproxy.google.com
Published On :: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 10:08:33 +0000

Conference

3 November 2014 - 9:30am to 4 November 2014 - 1:15pm

Chatham House, London

Overview

Agenda

Speakers

Pricing

Media partners

Sponsors

Audience profile

Venue and accommodation

Press registration

Climate change is climbing the political agenda. Extreme weather has raised questions in public discourse about the role of anthropogenic warming and concerns about its future impacts; slowdowns in emerging economies and sluggish recoveries in the developed world mean debates about the impact of climate policies on energy bills and competitiveness have assumed particular significance. Against this background, governments are gearing up for a crucial series of agreements in 2015 with climate change at their core. The international community must agree new global sustainable development goals, a new framework on disaster risk reduction and, at the 21st UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP 21) in Paris, a new global deal on climate change. 

The 18th Annual Chatham House Conference on Climate Change will take stock of developments in 2014, including the latest science, the findings of high-level commissions, initiatives from the business community and the UN Secretary-General’s High Level Summit at the end of September. Looking forward to COP 20 in Lima and beyond, this conference will examine opportunities to raise ambition and convert this into results.

In particular, it will:

  • Review the latest science on climate risk and the implications for business, society and politics 
     
  • Examine the benefits of a low carbon economy, and assess the costs of climate action and where they fall 
     
  • Discuss concrete measures to decarbonize key sectors and the barriers to action
     
  • Identify the critical path to the UNFCCC’s Conference of the Parties (COP 21) in 2015, and look at whether, and how, support for ambitious action can be built among publics, business and politicians


The Chatham House Rule
To enable as open a debate as possible, this conference will be held under the Chatham House Rule.

Twitter
Suggested hashtag: #CHclimate

DAY ONE
Monday 3 November

Session One
Taking Stock and Mapping the Road Ahead
09:30-11:15

  • What was achieved at the UN Secretary General’s High Level Summit in September? 
  • What is the outlook for COP 20 in Lima, and how can ambition be increased?
  • How will success at COP 21 in Paris be defined?

Chair
Rob Bailey, Acting Research Director, Energy, Environment and Resources, Chatham House

Keynote Address
Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, Minister of State for the Environment, Peru; President, COP 20, UN Framework for the Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (on the record)

Amber Rudd MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, United Kingdom (on the record)

Questions and Discussion

Chair
Jennifer Morgan, Director, Climate and Energy Programme, World Resources Institute (WRI) 

Speakers

Selwin Hart, Director, Secretary-General's Climate Change Support Team, United Nations

Dr Halldór Thorgeirsson, Director for Strategy, UN Framework for the Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

Leena Srivastava, Executive Director, The Energy and Resource Institute (TERI) 

Paul Watkinson, Head of Climate Negotiation Team, Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy, France

Questions and Discussion

11:15-11:45 Refreshments

Session Two
Low Carbon Economy: Costs and Benefits
11:45-13:00 

  • What are the economic and social opportunities and benefits of a low carbon economy? Where do these occur? How much are they worth?
  • What are examples of leadership among governments and business? What is needed to accelerate the transition and translate ambition into results?
  • What has been the impact of climate policies on economic competitiveness? Which economies and sectors have been most affected? How has this influenced national and international climate politics?
Chair's Opening Remarks
Marianne Fay, Chief Economist, Climate Change Group, The World Bank
Keynote Panel Discussion

Jeremy Oppenheim, Programme Director, New Climate Economy, Global Commission on the Economy and Climate 

Jos Delbeke, Director General for Climate Action, European Commission 

Dr Qi Ye, Director, Brookings-Tsinghua Center for Public Policy; Professor of Environmental Policy and Management at Tsinghua University’s School of Public Policy and Management

Jeremy Bentham, Vice President, Global Business Environment, Shell

Questions and Discussion

13:00-14:00 Lunch

Session Three
Concrete Steps to Action: Finance and Achieving Net Zero 

There is growing interest in the concept of net zero carbon emissions, for businesses, sectors and even countries. This session will examine the feasibility of net zero for the power and transport sectors, and for buildings and cities.

Chair
Shane Tomlinson, Senior Research Fellow, Energy, Environment and Resources, Chatham House

Opening Discussion
Manfred Konukiewitz, Co-Chair, the Green Climate Fund 

Matthew Kotchen, Professor of Economics, Yale University 

Farhana Yamin, Associate Fellow, Chatham House

Power and Transport
14:45-15:45

  • What do decarbonization roadmaps for the power and transport sectors look like? Is net zero feasible? If so, by when and how? What are the challenges posed by increasing renewable penetration, and how can they be managed? What are the implications of vehicle electrification for the power sector?
  • What are the implications for infrastructure and investment?

Chair
Shane Tomlinson, Senior Research Fellow, Energy, Environment and Resources, Chatham House

Speakers
Abyd Karmali, Managing Director, Climate Finance, Bank of America Merrill Lynch

Dries Acke, Policy Manager, European Climate Foundation (Belgium) 

Olivier Paturet, General Manager,  Zero Emissions Strategy, Nissan Europe

Stefan Raubenheimer, Co-Founder and Director, South South North;  Co-Director, MAPS Programme 

Questions and Discussion

15:45-16:15 Refreshments

Buildings and Cities
16:15-17:15

  • What is the state of the art for low carbon building; how can this be rolled out at scale? 
  • How can decarbonization objectives be incorporated into urban planning and regulation?
  • How are the challenges and needs different for developed and developing countries? 

Chair
Farhana Yamin, Associate Fellow, Energy, Environment and Resources, Chatham House

Speakers
Ed Mazria, Founder and CEO, Architecture 2030

Tony Mallows, Director, Masdar City 

Questions and Discussion

17:15 Close of day and drinks reception

DAY TWO
Tuesday 4 November

Session Four 
Climate Impacts
9:30-11:15 

Chair
Sir David King, Foreign Secretary's Special Representative for Climate Change, United Kingdom

Keynote Addresses
HE Belete Tafere, Minister, Ministry of Environment Protection and Forestry, Ethiopia (on the record)

Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Founding Director, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (on the record)

  • What climate impacts are already being witnessed? Are these in line with expectations? What is the current state of attribution analysis?
  • What are the implications for climate politics?
  • What are the expected social, economic and environmental impacts under different climate scenarios? What is the most recent science since the deadline for Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report?  
  • Which countries and sectors are most vulnerable? What are governments and businesses doing to adapt?


Chair
Sir David King, Foreign Secretary's Special Representative for Climate Change, United Kingdom

Speakers
Chris Field, Founding Director, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Science, Co-Chair of Working Group II of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report 

Professor Myles Allen, Leader of ECI Climate Research Programme and Professor of Geosystem Science, University of Oxford 

Nick Mabey, Director, E3G 

Oilver Bettis, Chair, Resource and Environment Board, Institute and Faculty of Actuaries

Questions and Discussion

11:15 - 11.45 Refreshments

Session Five
The Conditions for Action
11:45 - 13:00

  • What is the current state of public support for climate action? What shapes attitudes and beliefs? How does this vary by country? 
  • What can create political ambition, nationally and internationally?
  • What role can different stakeholders play in catalysing climate action?
  • What immediate obstacles need to be overcome and what lessons can be learned from recent success? 
Chair
Simon Maxwell, Executive Chair, Climate Development Knowledge Network
Keynote Address
Bill McKibben, President and Co-Founder, 350.org (on the record)

Panel Discussion
Antonio Hill, Executive Director, Global Campaign for Climate Action

Michael Jacobs, Senior Adviser on International Climate Policy, The Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations  

Jennifer Morgan, Director, Climate and Energy Programme, World Resources Institute (WRI) 

Sergio Margulis, National Secretary of Sustainable Development, Secretariat of Strategic Affairs of the Presidency of Brazil 

Sir David King, Foreign Secretary's Special Representative for Climate Change, United Kingdom

Questions and Discussion

Closing remarks
Rob Bailey, Acting Research Director, Energy, Environment and Resources, Chatham House

13:10 End of conference and lunch

 © The Royal Institute of International Affairs 2014

Keynote Speakers

Jeremy Bentham

Vice President, Global Business Environment, Shell

Jos Delbeke

Director General for Climate Action, European Commission

Bill McKibben

President and Co-Founder, 350.org

Jeremy Oppenheim

Programme Director, New Climate Economy, Global Commission on the Economy and Climate

Manuel Pulgar-Vidal

Minister of State for Environment, Peru; President COP20

Amber Rudd MP*

Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, United Kingdom

Professor Hans Joachim Schnellnhuber

Founding Director, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research

Belete Tafere

Minister of Environment Protection and Forestry, Ethiopia

Dr Qi Ye

Director, Brookings-Tsinghua Center for Public Policy and Professor of Environmental Policy; Management at Tsinghua University’s School of Public Policy and Management

Speakers

Dries Acke

Policy Manager, European Climate Foundation (Belgium)

Myles Allen

Coordinating Lead Author, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C; Professor of Geosystem Science, University of Oxford

Oliver Bettis

Chair, Institute and Faculty of Actuaries' Resource and Environment Board

Marianne Fay

Chief Economist, Climate Change Group, The World Bank

Chris Field

Founding Director, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Science

Selwin Hart

Director, Secretary-General's Climate Change Support Team, United Nations

Antonio Hill

Executive Director, Global Campaign for Climate Action

Michael Hogan

Senior Adviser, Regulatory Assistance Project

Professor Michael Jacobs

Senior Adviser on International Climate Policy, The Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations

Abyd Karmali

Managing Director, Climate Finance, Bank of America Merrill Lynch

Sir David King

Foreign Secretary’s Special Representative for Climate Change

Manfred Konukiewitz

Co-Chair, The Green Climate Fund

Matthew Kotchen

Professor of Economics, Yale University

Nick Mabey

Co-Founding Director and Chief Executive, E3G

Antony Mallows

Director, Masdar City

Sergio Margulis

National Secretary of Sustainable Development, Secretariat of Strategic Affairs of the Presidency, Brazil

Simon Maxwell

Executive Chairman, Climate and Development Knowledge Network

Edward Mazria

Founder and CEO, Architecture 2030

Jennifer Morgan

Executive Director, Greenpeace International

Olivier Paturet

General Manager, Zero Emissions Strategy, Nissan Europe

Stefan Raubenheimer

Co-Founder and Director, South South North; Co-Director, MAPS Programme

Jose-Manuel Sanoval

Coordinator, Colombian Low Carbon Development Strategy (CLCDS) and Mitigation Action Plans and Scenarios (MAPS)

Leena Srivastava

Hony. Executive Director (Operations), The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI)

Halldór Thorgeirsson

Director for Strategy, UN Framework for the Convention on Climate Change

Paul Watkinson

Head of Climate Negotiation Team, Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy, France

Farhana Yamin

Associate Fellow, Energy, Environment and Resources Programme

[node:event_chair]

Pricing

For any questions about rates, please call +44 (0)20 7314 2782.

                      FULL RATE
EXCL. VATINCL. VAT
Major corporate member rates
All organizations£595£714 
Corporate member rates
Commercial organizations£1,295£1,554
Government departments£775£930
NGOs and academics£495£594
Standard rates
Commercial organizations£1,445£1,734 
Government departments£845£1,014
NGOs and academics£550£660

This conference will offer a unique opportunity to network with senior officials from businesses, government, NGO's and academic institutions.

Our previous Climate Change conferences saw delegates from companies and institutions such as:

Accenture
AEA Energy & Environment
Agulhas
ArcelorMittal
Association of Asia Pacific Airlines (AAPA)
Atkins Ltd
Bank of America Merrill Lynch
BASF plc
Bayerngas Norge AS
Beetle Capital
BG Group plc
BHP Billiton
BIRA-IASB
BirdLife
Booz & Co
BP plc
British Council
BT Group plc
CAFOD
Cairn Energy plc
Cambridge Centre for Energy Studies
Cambridge Programme for Sustainable Leadership
Carbon Capture and Storage Association
Carbon Leapfrog
Carbon Trust
Caritas Internationalis
Catholic Fund for Overseas Development (CAFOD)
CH2M Hill
Chevron Ltd
Chubu Electric Power Co Inc
City of London
ClientEarth
Clifford Chance LLP
Climate & Development Knowledge Network (CDKN)
Climate Action Network (CAN)
Climate and Health Council
Climate Secure
Coalition for an International Court for the Environment (ICE Coalition)
Compassion in World Farming (CIWF)
Conocophillips (UK) Ltd
Control Risks
Co-operative Group
Cranfield University
Deloitte Consulting LLP
Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS)
Department for International Development (DFID)
Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC)
Ecofys UK Ltd
Ecologic Institute
EDF Energy
Energy Charter Secretariat
Energy Technologies Institute
Eni S.p.A
Environment Agency
Environmental Law Foundation (ELF)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Environmental Resources Management (ERM)
ENWORKS
Ernst & Young
Ethical Investment Research Services Ltd (EIRIS)
European Bank For Reconstruction & Development
European Commission (Directorate General for Enterprise and Industry)
European Parliament
ExxonMobil International Ltd
Fauna & Flora International
FIA Foundation for the Automobile and Society
Finnish Forest Association
Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO)
Forestry Commission
Friends of the Earth
Genesis Investment Management LLP
GLG Partners LP
Global CCS Institute
Global Humanitarian Forum
Global Sustainability Institute
Global Witness
Globeleq Ltd
Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, LSE
Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce
Greenpeace International
Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
HM Treasury
Imperial College London
INPEX Corporation
Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR)
Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC)
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
International Council on Mining and Metals
International Finance Corporation (IFC)
International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO)
Joseph Rowntree Foundation
JPMorgan
King's College London
KPMG
Kuwait Petroleum Corporation
London Assembly
London Metropolitan University
London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)
Maersk Group
Massey University
McKinsey & Company
Met Office
METREX
Ministere des Affaires Etrangeres, France
Ministry of Defence (Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Netherlands
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Finland
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Poland
Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment
Mitsubishi Corporation
National Farmers' Union
National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy
Netherlands Development Finance Company (FMO)
NEXUS Singapore
Nordic Council
Office of National Assessments
Ogilvy
Open Society Foundation
Overseas Development Institute (ODI)
Oxford University
Plan UK
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Privy Council Office
Progressio
Quaker Peace and Social Witness
Québec Government Office
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP)
Renewable Energy Systems Ltd (RES)
Rolls-Royce International Ltd
RWE Power AG
Save the Children UK
SCA, Svenska Cellulosa Aktiebolaget
School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS)
Shell
Standard Chartered Bank plc
Statoil (UK) Ltd
SustainAbility Ltd
Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI)
Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation SDC
Task Consult
Texas A&M University
The 40 Foundation
The Climate Group
The Gold Standard Foundation
The Norwegian Institute for Nature Research
The Open University
The Prince of Wales Corporate Leader Group
The Royal Society
The Saudi Fund For Development
Tokyo Electric Power Company
Total Holdings UK Ltd
UK Chamber of Shipping
UK Collaborative on Development Sciences (UKCDS)
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
University College London (UCL)
University of Cambridge
University of East Anglia (School of Environmental Sciences)
University of Edinburgh
University of Oxford (Department of Politics and International Relations)
US Department of State
USAID
Warwick Business School
WaterAid
World Coal Association
World Coal Institute
World Economic Forum
World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA)
World Vision UK
WWF-UK
Xynteo Ltd
Yorkshire Forward

Venue

Chatham House
10 St James's Square
London
SW1Y 4LE
UK

conferences@chathamhouse.org

Telephone: +44 (0)20 7957 5729
Fax: +44 (0)20 7957 5710

If you wish to book the venue for your event please phone +44 (0)20 7314 2764


Directions

The nearest tube station is Piccadilly Circus which is on the Piccadilly and the Bakerloo Underground lines. From Piccadilly follow Regent Street southwards towards Pall Mall and take the first road on the right called Jermyn Street. Duke of York Street is the second road on the left and leads to St James's Square. Chatham House is immediately on your right.

Map

Accommodation

Although we cannot book accommodation for delegates, we have arranged a reduced rate at some nearby hotels, where you can book your own accommodation. Please inform the hotel that you will be attending a conference at Chatham House (The Royal Institute of International Affairs) to qualify for the Institute's reduced rate.

Please note all rates are subject to availability.

Flemings Mayfair
Half Moon Street
Mayfair
London W1J 7BH
Tel: + 44 (0)20 7499 2964
Fax: + 44 (0)20 7499 1817
Standard Single from £199 + VAT

The Cavendish London
81 Jermyn Street
London
SW1Y 6JF
Tel: + 44 (0)20 7930 2111
Fax: + 44 (0)20 7839 2125
Standard Single £205 + VAT

To book The Cavendish online

The Stafford London by Kempinski
St James's Place
London
SW1A 1NJ
Tel: 020 7518 1125
Fax: 020 7493 7121
Standard Single £230 +VAT

This conference will be held under the Chatham House Rule. Information for journalists
Press can request a press pass.


Chatham House Conferences

+44 (0)20 7957 5729


Full Article

cl

A Global Response to HFCs through Fair and Effective Ozone and Climate Policies

By feedproxy.google.com
Published On :: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 13:27:40 +0000

11 July 2014

Rising HFC use poses a significant threat to intergovernmental efforts to combat climate change. At present, there is a glaring regulatory gap in this area. Although challenging, there is no reason why the international community cannot come together to address this new problem of coordination and ensure that legal regimes support each other.

Full Report Summary

Duncan Brack

Associate Fellow, Energy, Environment and Resources Programme

Stephen O. Andersen

Director of Research, the Institute for Governance &amp; Sustainable Development (IGSD)

Joanna Depledge

Affiliated Lecturer, Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge

20140710GlacierHFCClimate.jpg

In this aerial image, icebergs are seen as a glacier is flown into the sea on July 30, 2012 near Qaanaaq, Greenland. Photo by The Asahi Shimbun via Getty Images.

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are replacements for many of the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) currently being phased out under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Unlike those ozone-depleting substances (ODS), HFCs do not destroy the ozone layer, but they are very powerful greenhouse gases (GHGs) – up to thousands of times more damaging to the climate than carbon dioxide – and their use is currently growing faster than any other category of GHGs. Projections show HFC use increasing as much as 30-fold by 2050, adding up to 0.1°C of global average temperature rise by mid-century, and increasing up to five-fold, to 0.5°C, by 2100. This clearly makes it more difficult to limit the rise in global temperature to the internationally agreed ceiling of 2°C – and thereby avoid dangerous climate change – by the end of the 21st century.

As GHGs, HFCs fall under the purview of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and are explicitly listed under the UNFCCC’s 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which controls emissions of HFCs and other GHGs. They are not, however, subject to any specific measures under the climate agreements, and this is unlikely to change in the near future. Accordingly, the last five years have seen proposals to amend the Montreal Protocol to phase down the production and consumption of HFCs.

Such a step would have a number of advantages. Since substitutes already exist for almost all uses of HFCs, the consumption and production phase-out model of the Montreal Protocol is better suited to controlling HFCs than the emissions limits controls of the climate regime; and the individuals and organizations involved in implementing the Montreal Protocol have accumulated substantial experience and expertise in dealing with precisely those industrial sectors in which HFCs are used, including refrigeration and air-conditioning, foams, solvents and aerosols.

This paper, which draws on the discussions at a workshop held at Chatham House in April 2014, outlines the main issues around the question of how best to craft a fair and effective global response to the growth in HFC use. A number of key issues are central to the debate: the principle of equity between developed and developing countries; the availability of alternatives to HFCs; the need for financial support for developing countries; the legal relationship between the climate and ozone regimes; and, underlying all these, the need for political will to resolve these challenges.

Department/project

Energy, Environment and Resources Programme


Full Article

cl

EU Lays Down Marker for Global Climate Action

By feedproxy.google.com
Published On :: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 13:21:32 +0000

24 October 2014

Antony Froggatt

Senior Research Fellow, Energy, Environment and Resources Programme

Shane Tomlinson

Former Senior Research Fellow, Energy, Environment and Resources
The EU’s climate and energy package represents an important step ahead of a potential global deal next year in Paris. But a disappointing approach to energy efficiency and uncertainty over governance threatens to undermine delivery.

20141024MerkelSchulzClimate.jpg

German Chancellor Angela Merkel talks with European parliament president Martin Schulz during an EU climate summit on 23 October 2014. Photo by Getty Images.

The European Union has reached agreement on its 2030 climate and energy package in preparation for the next major international climate summit in Paris in December 2015. In the agreement member states have signed up to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 40% by 2030 – compared to 1990 levels. Currently emissions are approximately 20% below 1990 levels and so the 2030 target represents a continuation of current decarbonization trends, but it is below the rate of reductions required to meet the longer term objective of cutting emission by 80-95% by 2050.

However, the overall 40% reduction will still drive structural changes in Europe’s economy and the energy sector. This could and should be seen as an opportunity for the EU to become a world leader in the innovation of both the new technologies and systems, such as electricity storage, dynamic demand responses and the deployment of electric vehicles, all of which are experiencing a rapid increase in the size of their global markets.

But there are some concerns. The climate and energy package has put forward a collective target to double the current level of renewables so that it will provide at least 27% of energy by 2030. However, the target is binding on the EU as a whole but not on individual member states, which creates uncertainty and is further complicated by a lack of clarity on the enforcement mechanism, which remains vague. To avoid loss of investor and industrial confidence a transparent process needs to be rapidly developed that ensures compliance. 

The EU has also failed to give energy efficiency the priority it deserves, downgrading it to an indicative target (i.e. one that is aspirational only) of a 27% reduction in energy use from business as usual. However, this is equivalent to, at most, a 19% reduction from Europe's pre-recession trajectory. The weaker energy efficiency and renewable energy elements of the package reflects the resistance of a relatively small number of countries to further EU-wide legal commitments, either because they prefer market inducement or due to their reluctance to reform their energy sectors. The package also makes clear that the a reformed Emissions Trading Scheme will be the main instrument to achieve the GHG reduction target and proposes to accelerate the reduction of the cap on maximum permitted emissions. However, this would only kick in after 2021, meaning the scheme will remain relatively ineffective for at least another five years. 

The crisis in Ukraine and the potential implications for security of supply once again highlights the importance of both domestic energy production and common European approaches to energy suppliers. Every 1% of energy saved across the EU reduces gas imports by 2.6%, and a stronger target would do more to reduce dependence on Russian gas imports. The EU’s failure to adopt a more far reaching and binding target on energy efficiency is a missed opportunity given that it is one  of the only approaches that delivers on the three pillars on energy policy, namely environmental protection, competitiveness and security of supply, simultaneously.

It is important to note the progress that the EU has made in both meeting its climate targets over the last decade and the impact that this has had on its other energy policy objectives. Currently, the EU’s 2020 target for reducing GHG emissions by 20% has or is very close to being met, in part due to the economic downturn, but also due to efficiency, renewable energy and changing industrial patterns and technologies. Furthermore, the use of renewable energy is now estimated to save around €30 billion per year in imported energy, improving balance of payments and improving security of supply. Likewise improvements in energy efficiency have been shown since the turn of the century to have contributed to a 1% annual reduction in energy consumption in the EU.

But the EU is not alone in preparing national carbon reduction targets for the UNFCCC conference in Paris 2015. Both China and the US, the world’s first and second largest emitters, are preparing their own emission reduction plans. China announced in September that it would put forward a new target for the peaking of its carbon dioxide emissions as early as possible. It is suggested that this might be as early as in 2025, with the potential for peak coal use coming even earlier in 2020. The US has proposed to set limits on the emissions from new coal-fired power stations and a 30% reduction in US power sector emissions by 2030 (relative to their 2005 baseline), and President Obama is expected to go further with new climate measures next year.

In the year ahead all countries that are party to the UNFCCC are expected to put on the table their national carbon abatement plans for 2030.  Some will be conditional upon further international assistance and commitments. The package agreed by Europe has scope to respond to increased efforts by other countries. This could include increasing the EU’s own domestic target (currently framed as ‘at least 40%’) or through international offsets and climate finance. How the EU responds to other countries efforts will be a test of its global leadership on climate issues.

To comment on this article, please contact Chatham House Feedback 


Full Article

cl

Why wealthy countries must not drop nuclear energy: coal power, climate change and the fate of the global poor

By feedproxy.google.com
Published On :: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 11:37:45 +0000

12 March 2015 , Volume 91, Number 2

Reinhard Wolf


Full Article

cl

Africa's Responses to Climate Change: Policies to Manage Threat and Create Opportunity

By feedproxy.google.com
Published On :: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 10:30:01 +0000

Research Event

23 September 2015 - 12:00pm to 1:30pm

Chatham House, London

Meeting Summary
pdf | 112.65 KB

Event participants

Dr Fatima Denton, Director, Special Initiatives Division, UN Economic Commission for Africa
Dr Chukwumerije Okereke, Associate Professor, University of Reading
Douglas Brew, Director External Affairs, Communications and Sustainable Living for Africa, Unilever
Chair: Bob Dewar, Associate Fellow, Africa Programme, Chatham House

African countries will be amongst the worst affected by climate change. High levels of poverty and underdevelopment combined with insufficient infrastructure exacerbate the already severe impact of global warming on resources, development and human security. In order to adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change, Africa’s leaders need to implement more robust environmental policies, increase local human capacity and encourage renewable energy entrepreneurship. Within international fora, they must better coordinate their position as some of the smallest contributors to global warming.

Ahead of the upcoming UN conference on climate change in Paris, this discussion will examine the prospects for African countries to present a stronger collective voice within the international efforts against climate change, as well as the role that the international community and public and private partners can play in supporting local capacity and lower carbon economic growth.

Department/project

Africa Programme, Energy, Environment and Resources Programme


Full Article

cl

Implications of climate change for the UN Security Council: mapping the range of potential policy responses

By feedproxy.google.com
Published On :: Fri, 06 Nov 2015 14:06:18 +0000

6 November 2015 , Volume 91, Number 6

 

 

Shirley V. Scott


Full Article

cl

A Good Deal? Assessing the Paris Climate Agreement

By feedproxy.google.com
Published On :: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 10:00:02 +0000

Invitation Only Research Event

16 December 2015 - 5:00pm to 6:30pm

Chatham House, London

Event participants

Shane Tomlinson, Senior Research Fellow, Energy, Environment and Resources Department, Chatham House

Following the conclusion of the Paris climate negotiations, this expert roundtable will examine the critical elements of the final agreement and what this means for the future of energy and climate policy in key countries.

The discussion will examine what the agreement means for keeping global average temperatures below two degrees Celsius and assess whether ambition will be ratcheted over time. It will also look at the primary implications of the outcome for key regions and countries such as the EU, United States, China and India. Finally, the session will also consider the next steps in terms of implementing the agreement. 

Attendance at this event is by invitation only. 

Department/project

Energy, Environment and Resources Programme

Owen Grafham

Manager, Energy, Environment and Resources Programme
+44 (0)20 7957 5708


Full Article

cl

Europe’s Energy Union: Foreign Policy Implications for Energy Security, Climate and Competitiveness

By feedproxy.google.com
Published On :: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:09:24 +0000

31 March 2016

By addressing structural divisions between member states, the Energy Union could have a beneficial effect on the EU’s capacity to conduct a unified and effective foreign policy, write Thomas Raines and Shane Tomlinson.

Download PDF

Thomas Raines

Director, Europe Programme

Shane Tomlinson

Former Senior Research Fellow, Energy, Environment and Resources, Chatham House

2016-03-31-europe-energy-union.jpg

True colour satellite image of Europe at night. Photo via Getty Images.

Summary

  • Plans for an EU-wide Energy Union are taking shape, following the European Commission’s adoption in February 2015 of a ‘Framework Strategy for a Resilient Energy Union with a Forward-Looking Climate Change Policy’. The strategy underlines the EU’s ambition to attain ‘secure, sustainable, competitive, affordable energy for every European’.
  • The initiative seeks to transform energy markets and energy/climate policy across the EU. Its goals include cross-border coordination and integration in energy security, supply, market operations, regulation, energy efficiency, low-carbon development, and research and innovation.
  • There is an important foreign policy aspect to the Energy Union, given the imperative of managing security and supply risks in Europe’s neighbourhood and further afield. By addressing structural divisions between member states, the Energy Union could have a marked beneficial effect on the EU’s capacity to conduct a unified and effective foreign policy.
  • Development of the Energy Union presents abundant challenges, however. Policy and legislative changes will need to be coordinated across 28 countries. Variations in EU member states’ attitudes to security and energy policy may lead to differences in, or clashes between, priorities. The wider context is also complicated. Interrelated challenges rooted in broader policy issues include the partial transition to low-carbon energy, and concerns over competitiveness relative to other major economies.
  • The current EU approach to energy security and infrastructure focuses on natural gas. This ‘gas first’ approach risks crowding out other responses to the energy security challenge. It could result in the creation of ‘stranded assets’, if the future gas demand on which investments are predicated does not match projections. A narrow focus on new gas infrastructure could also impede development of other dimensions of the Energy Union.
  • The markets for coal, oil, gas and renewables are changing significantly. The shale oil and gas ‘revolution’ in the United States has altered the economics of hydrocarbon fuels, and the plunge in oil prices since mid-2014 is causing energy businesses in the EU to reassess investment plans.
  • The EU is rapidly expanding the use of renewable energy. Dramatically falling prices for renewables will challenge traditional energy utility business models. How the Energy Union enables market access for new business models will be key to determining future energy trajectories.

Department/project

Europe Programme, UK-EU27 Energy Cooperation, Energy, Environment and Resources Programme


Full Article

cl

Post-Paris: Taking Forward the Global Climate Change Deal

By feedproxy.google.com
Published On :: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 09:38:39 +0000

21 April 2016

Inevitably, the compromises of the Paris Agreement make it both a huge achievement and an imperfect solution to the problem of global climate change.

Rob Bailey

Former Research Director, Energy, Environment and Resources
Shane Tomlinson
Former Senior Research Fellow, Energy, Environment and Resources

2016-04-21-post-paris.jpg

The slogan '1.5 Degrees' is projected on the Eiffel Tower as part of the World Climate Change Conference 2015 (COP21) on 11 December 2015 in Paris, France. Photo by Getty Images.

Summary

  • The Paris Agreement, reached at COP21, was a triumph of diplomacy. The deal can be characterized as: flexible, combining a ‘hard’ legal shell and a ‘soft’ enforcement mechanism; inclusive, as it was adopted by all 196 parties to the UNFCCC and is therefore the first truly global climate deal; messy, as the bottom-up process of creating nationally determined contributions means the system is unstandardized; non-additive, as the contributions do not currently deliver the agreement’s stated long-term goal of keeping the rise in global average temperature to ‘well below 2˚C’; and dynamic, as the deal establishes a ratchet mechanism that requires more ambitious contributions every five years.
  • The next five years are critical for keeping the below 2˚C goal within reach. A ‘facilitative dialogue’ starting in 2018 will give states the opportunity to revisit their contributions in advance of the agreement entering into force in 2020. International forums, such as the G7 and G20, can play a crucial role in kickstarting these efforts.
  • The ‘coalitions of the willing’ and clubs that were launched under the Lima-Paris Action Agenda provide an innovative space for state and non-state actors to unlock transformational change. However, it is important that these groups set specific and measurable targets to ensure effective delivery of objectives.
  • The post-Paris regime implies a significant role for civil society organizations. However, in many countries the ‘safe operating space’ both for these organizations and for the media is shrinking. Expanding the capacity of civil society and the media in areas such as communications, litigation, project implementation and technical expertise will be important if they are to support the regime effectively.

Related documents

Briefing: Post-Paris: Taking Forward the Global Climate Change Deal
pdf | 391.55 KB

Department/project

Energy, Environment and Resources Programme


Full Article

cl

UK Unplugged? The Impacts of Brexit on Energy and Climate Policy

By feedproxy.google.com
Published On :: Wed, 25 May 2016 10:43:26 +0000

26 May 2016

In the field of energy and climate change policy, remaining in the EU offers the best balance of policy options for Britain’s national interests.

Download PDF

Antony Froggatt

Senior Research Fellow, Energy, Environment and Resources Programme

Thomas Raines

Director, Europe Programme

Shane Tomlinson

Senior Associate, E3G; Former Senior Research Fellow, Chatham House

2016-05-26-uk-unplugged-brexit-energy.jpg

A line of electricity pylons stretches beyond fields of rapeseed near Hutton Rudby, North Yorkshire, on 27 April 2015. Photo: Getty Images.

Summary

  • Over the last 30 years the EU has played a central role in addressing the competitiveness, security and climate dimensions of energy policy among its member states. The UK has been critical in driving forward integration of the European energy market, and has been a strong advocate of liberalized energy markets and some climate change mitigation policies.
  • If, at the June 2016 referendum, the UK does vote to leave the EU, energy and climate policy will be part of the overall package of issues to be negotiated, as it is unlikely that each sector will be treated separately. The model of relations for energy and climate may well be determined by political and public sentiment on higher-profile issues such as freedom of movement, rather than by what is best for the UK in these policy areas.
  • The UK is increasingly reliant on imports, including from and through continental Europe, and its energy market is deeply integrated with that of its European neighbours. As a growing share of the UK’s electricity is exchanged with EU partners, it would be neither possible nor desirable to ‘unplug’ the UK from Europe’s energy networks. A degree of continued adherence to EU market, environmental and governance rules would be inevitable.
  • This paper reviews the risks and trade-offs associated with five possible options for a post-exit relationship. Of these, the Norway or the Energy Community models would be the least disruptive, enabling continuity in energy market access, regulatory frameworks and investment; however, both would come at the cost of accepting the vast majority of legislation while relinquishing any say in its creation. The UK would thus have less, rather than more, sovereignty over energy policy.
  • The Switzerland, the Canada and the WTO models offer the possibility of greater sovereignty in a number of areas, such as buildings and infrastructure standards as well as state aid. None the less, each would entail higher risks, with greater uncertainty over market access, investment and electricity prices. These models would reduce or even eliminate the UK’s contribution to the EU budget, but would also limit or cut off access to EU funding mechanisms.
  • All five Brexit models would undermine the UK’s influence in international energy and climate diplomacy. The UK would no longer play any direct role in shaping the climate and energy policies of its EU neighbours, at a time when the EU’s proposed Energy Union initiatives offer the prospect of a more integrated and effective European energy sector. A decision to leave the EU would make it easier for a future UK government to change direction on climate policy, since only a change in domestic legislation would be required.
  • ‘Brexit’ could affect the balance of energy policy among the remaining member states. In its absence, the centre of gravity for EU energy policy might shift away from market mechanisms and result in weaker collective action on greenhouse gas reduction targets.
  • In the field of energy and climate change policy, remaining in the EU offers the best balance of policy options for Britain’s national interests: the UK would continue to benefit from the integrated energy market, while maintaining influence over its direction and minimizing uncertainty for crucial investment.

Department/project

Europe Programme, UK-EU27 Energy Cooperation, Energy, Environment and Resources Programme


Full Article