cli

Impact of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT on Staging and Management of Prostate Cancer Patients in Various Clinical Settings: A Prospective Single Center Study

The impact of prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT on management of prostate cancer (PCa) patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR) is well-established. However, whether and how PSMA PET/CT affects the management of patients undergoing scans for other clinical indications remains unknown. The goal of this study was to determine the impact of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT on initial and subsequent management decisions in a cohort of PCa patients referred for various indications ("basket trial") excluding the two main classical indications: BCR and presurgical staging. Methods: This was a prospective study of 197 patients that aimed to determine the impact of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT on PCa stage and management. Indications for PSMA PET/CT were: initial staging of non-surgical candidates (30 patients) and re-staging after definitive treatment (n = 168). The re-staging cohort comprised: patients re-staged with known advanced metastatic disease (n = 103), after androgen deprivation therapy only (n = 16), after surgery with serum PSA levels <0.2 ng/ml (n = 13), after radiation therapy (RT) not meeting the Phoenix criteria (n = 22) and after other primary local treatments [i.e. high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), focal laser ablation, cryoablation, hyperthermia or irreversible electroporation] (n = 13). Patients with BCR and candidates for curative surgery were excluded. Impact on management was assessed using pre- and post-PET questionnaires completed by referring physicians, electronic chart review and/or patient telephone encounters. Results: PSMA PET/CT changed disease stage in 135/197 (69%) patients (38% up-stage, 30% down-stage and no changes in stage in 32%). Management was affected in 104/182 (57%) patients. Specifically, PSMA PET/CT impacted management of patients who were re-staged after RT without meeting the Phoenix criteria for BCR, after other definitive local treatments and with advanced metastatic disease in 13/18 (72%), 8/12 (67%) and 59/96 (61%), respectively. Conclusion: PSMA PET/CT has a profound impact on stage and management of PCa patients outside of the two main classical indications (BCR and presurgical staging) across all examined clinical scenarios.




cli

Demarcation of Sepsis-Induced Peripheral and Central Acidosis with pH-Low Insertion Cyclic (pHLIC) Peptide

Acidosis is a key driver for many diseases, including cancer, sepsis, and stroke. The spatiotemporal dynamics of dysregulated pH across disease remains elusive and current diagnostic strategies do not provide localization of pH alterations. We sought to explore if PET imaging using hydrophobic cyclic peptides that partition into the cellular membrane at low extracellular pH (denoted as "pHLIC") can permit accurate in vivo visualization of acidosis. Methods: Acid-sensitive cyclic peptide c[E4W5C] pHLIC was conjugated to bifunctional maleimide-NO2A and radiolabeled with copper-64 (t1/2 = 12.7 h). C57BL/6J mice were administered LPS (15 mg/kg) or saline (vehicle) and serially imaged with [64Cu]Cu-c[E4W5C] over 24 h. Ex vivo autoradiography was performed on resected brain slices and subsequently stained with cresyl violet to enable high-resolution spatial analysis of tracer accumulation. A non- pH-sensitive cell-penetrating control peptide (c[R4W5C]) was used to confirm specificity of [64Cu]Cu-c[E4W5C]. CD11b (macrophage/microglia) and TMEM119 (microglia) immunostaining was performed to correlate extent of neuroinflammation with [64Cu]Cu-c[E4W5C] PET signal. Results: [64Cu]Cu-c[E4W5C] radiochemical yield and purity was >95% and >99% respectively, with molar activity >0.925 MBq/nmol. Significantly increased [64Cu]Cu-c[E4W5C] uptake was observed in LPS-treated mice (vs. vehicle) within peripheral tissues including blood, lungs, liver, and small intestines (P < 0.001-0.05). Additionally, there was significantly increased [64Cu]Cu-c[E4W5C] uptake in the brains of LPS-treated animals. Autoradiography confirmed increased uptake in the cerebellum, cortex, hippocampus, striatum, and hypothalamus of LPS-treated mice (vs. vehicle). Immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis revealed microglial/macrophage infiltrate, suggesting activation in brain regions containing increased tracer uptake. [64Cu]Cu-c[R4W5C] demonstrated significantly reduced uptake in the brain and periphery of LPS mice compared to the acid-mediated [64Cu]Cu-c[E4W5C] tracer. Conclusion: Here, we demonstrate that a pH-sensitive PET tracer specifically detects acidosis in regions associated with sepsis-driven pro-inflammatory responses. This study suggests that [64Cu]Cu-pHLIC is a valuable tool to noninvasively assess acidosis associated with both central and peripheral innate immune activation.




cli

64Cu-DOTATATE PET/CT for Imaging Patients with Known or Suspected Somatostatin Receptor-Positive Neuroendocrine Tumors: Results of the First US Prospective, Reader-Blinded Clinical Trial

Studies demonstrate that the investigational 64Cu-DOTATATE radiopharmaceutical may provide diagnostic and logistical benefits over available imaging agents for patients with somatostatin receptor (SSTR)-positive neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). Accordingly, we aimed to prospectively determine the lowest dose of 64Cu-DOTATATE that facilitates diagnostic quality scans and evaluated the diagnostic performance and safety in a phase III study of patients with SSTR-expressing NETs. Methods: A dose-ranging study was conducted in 12 patients divided into 3 dose groups (111 MBq [3.0 mCi], 148 MBq [4.0 mCi], and 185 MBq [5.0 mCi] ± 10%) to determine the lowest dose of 64Cu-DOTATATE that produced diagnostic quality PET/CT images. Using the 64Cu-DOTATATE dose identified in the dose-ranging study, 3 independent nuclear medicine physicians who were blinded to all clinical information read PET/CT scans from 21 healthy volunteers and 42 NET-positive patients to determine those with "Disease" and "No Disease," as well as "Localized" versus "Metastatic" status. Blinded-reader evaluations were compared to a patient-specific standard of truth (SOT), which was established by an independent oncologist who used all previously available pathology, clinical, and conventional imaging data. Diagnostic performance calculated for 64Cu-DOTATATE included sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, and accuracy. Inter- and intra-reader reliability, as well as ability to differentiate between localized and metastatic disease, was also determined. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded from 64Cu-DOTATATE injection through 48 hours post-injection. Results: The dose-ranging study identified 148 MBq (4.0 mCi) as the optimal dose to obtain diagnostic quality PET/CT images. Following database lock, diagnostic performance from an initial majority read of the 3 independent readers showed a significant 90.9% sensitivity (P = 0.0042) and 96.6% specificity (P < 0.0001) for detecting NETs, which translated to a 100.0% sensitivity and 96.8% specificity after correcting for an initial SOT misread. Excellent inter- and intra-reader reliability, as well as ability to distinguish between localized and metastatic disease, was also noted. No AEs were related to 64Cu-DOTATATE, and no serious AEs were observed. Conclusion: 64Cu-DOTATATE PET/CT is a safe imaging technique that provides high-quality and accurate images at a dose of 148 MBq (4.0 mCi) for the detection of somatostatin-expressing NETs.




cli

In vivo instability of 177Lu-DOTATATE during peptide receptor radionuclide therapy

Peptide receptor radiotherapy using 177Lu-labeled somatostatin ligand analogs is a well-established treatment for neuroendocrine tumors (NET), with 177Lu-DOTATATE having acquired marketing authorization in Europe and the USA. The investigation of the pharmacokinetics of those radiopharmaceuticals in vivo in humans is crucial for personalized treatment management and understanding of treatment effects. It requires input data on the in vivo stability of the radiopharmaceuticals in blood and plasma. The work presented here is devoted to the investigation of in vivo stability of 177Lu-DOTATATE in humans affected by NET. Unexpectedly, fast metabolism of the radiopharmaceutical was observed, with fraction of intact 177Lu-DOTATATE in plasma decreasing rapidly to 23±5% (mean ± SD) at 24 h and 1.7±0.9% at 96 h after injection.




cli

Efficacy of Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy for Esthesioneuroblastoma

Objectives: Esthesioneuroblastoma (ENB) is rare with limited therapeutic options when unresectable or metastatic; however, expression of somatostatin receptors qualifies it for peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT). We report outcomes of PRRT in ENB from two referral centers. Methods: Using PRRT databases at two European Neuroendocrine Tumour Society Centers of Excellence, case finding was undertaken between 2004-2018 for patients who had PRRT with recurrent/metastatic ENB deemed unsuitable for further conventional therapies. Evaluations of response using a composite reference standard and for survival were performed. Results: Of seven patients, four had partial response, two had disease stabilization and one had early progression. Possible side effects include worsening CSF-leaks. Median progression-free survival was 17 months (range, 0-30), and median overall survival was 32 months (range, 4–53). Conclusion: PRRT shows promising efficacy and moderate survival duration in unresectable locally advanced or metastatic ENB warranting larger cohort studies incorporating measures of quality of life.




cli

PSMA PET/CT and standard plus PET/CT-Ultrasound fusion targeted prostate biopsy can diagnose clinically significant prostate cancer in men with previous negative biopsies

The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility and diagnostic efficacy of 68Ga-PSMA positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) combined with PET-ultrasound image-guided biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Methods: A total of 31 patients with previously negative prostate biopsy, but persistent elevated serum prostate specific antigen (PSA), were imaged with a 68Ga-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT ligand prior to undergoing repeat prostate biopsy. Based on the proposed PROMISE criteria, PSMA PET/CT results were interpreted as negative (miPSMA-ES 0-1) or positive (miPSMA-ES 2-3). All patients underwent standard template systematic biopsy with up to four additional PSMA PET-ultrasound fusion image-guided biopsy cores. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of PSMA PET/CT were determined. In addition, the correlation between miPSMA-ES and detection rate of prostate cancer was also analyzed. Univariate logistic regression models were established using PSMA PET/CT semi-quantitative analysis parameters to predict the outcome of repeat prostate biopsy. Results: The median age of patients was 65 years (range 53-81), and the median PSA level was 18.0 ng/ml (range 5.48-49.77 ng/ml). Prostate cancer was detected in 15/31 patients (48.4%) and 12/31 patients (38.7%) had clinically significant disease. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer were 100.0%, 68.4%, 66.7%, 100.0% and 80.6%, respectively. The detection rate of prostate cancer increased with the increase of miPSMA-ES score. The detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer in miPSMA-ES 0-1, 2 and 3 groups were 0%, 54.5% and 85.7% respectively. Semi-quantitative analysis of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT images showed that predictive models based on maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), tumor-to-background normal prostate SUV (SUVT/BGp) and tumor-to-background normal liver SUV (SUVratio) could effectively predict clinically significant prostate cancer; area under the curves were 0.930, 0.877, and 0.956, respectively. Conclusion: This study preliminarily confirmed that 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT imaging combined with PET-ultrasound fusion image-guided prostate biopsy can effectively detect clinically significant prostate cancer. Prebiopsy 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT has predictive value for clinically significant cancer in the studied patient population.




cli

Clinical evaluation of a data-driven respiratory gating algorithm for whole-body positron emission tomography with continuous bed motion

Respiratory gating is the standard to overcome respiration effects degrading image quality in positron emission tomography (PET). Data-driven gating (DDG) using signals derived from PET raw data are promising alternatives to gating approaches requiring additional hardware. However, continuous bed motion (CBM) scans require dedicated DDG approaches for axially-extended PET, compared to DDG for conventional step-and-shoot scans. In this study, a CBM-capable DDG algorithm was investigated in a clinical cohort, comparing it to hardware-based gating using gated and fully motion-corrected reconstructions. Methods: 56 patients with suspected malignancies in thorax or abdomen underwent whole-body 18F-FDG CBM-PET/CT imaging using DDG and hardware-based respiratory gating (pressure-sensitive belt gating, BG). Correlation analyses were performed on both gating signals. Besides static reconstructions, BG and DDG were used for optimally-gated PET (BG-OG, DDG-OG) and fully motion-corrected PET (elastic motion correction; BG-EMOCO, DDG-EMOCO). Metabolic volumes, SUVmax and SUVmean of lesions were compared amongst the reconstructions. Additionally, the quality of lesion delineation in different PET reconstructions was independently evaluated by three experts. Results: Global correlation coefficients between BG and DDG signals amounted to 0.48±0.11, peaking at 0.89±0.07 when scanning the kidney and liver region. In total, 196 lesions were analyzed. SUV measurements were significantly higher in BG-OG, DDG-OG, BG-EMOCO and DDG-EMOCO compared to static images (P<0.001; median SUVmax: static, 14.3±13.4; BG-EMOCO, 19.8±15.7; DDG-EMOCO, 20.5±15.6; BG-OG, 19.6±17.1; DDG-OG, 18.9±16.6). No significant differences between BG-OG and DDG-OG, and BG-EMOCO and DDG-EMOCO, respectively, were found. Visual lesion delineation was significantly better in BG-EMOCO and DDG-EMOCO than in static reconstructions (P<0.001); no significant difference was found comparing BG and DDG (EMOCO, OG, respectively). Conclusion: DDG-based motion-compensation of CBM-PET acquisitions outperforms static reconstructions, delivering qualities comparable to hardware-based approaches. The new algorithm may be a valuable alternative for CBM-PET systems.




cli

The role of FAPI-PET/CT for patients with malignancies of the lower gastrointestinal tract - first clinical experience

For oncological management or radiotherapy planning, reliable staging tools are essential. Recent development of quinoline-based ligands targeting cancer-associated fibroblasts demonstrated promising preclinical and clinical results. The current study aimed to evaluate the role of fibroblast activation protein inhibitors (FAPI)-positron-emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) for primary malignancies located within the lower gastrointestinal tract (LGT) as a very first clinical analysis. Methods: 68Ga-FAPI-PET/CT was performed in a cohort of 22 patients with LGT including 15 patients with metastatic disease, 1 patient with suspected local relapse and 6 treatment-naïve patients. 68Ga-FAPI-04 and 68Ga-FAPI-46 uptake was quantified by standardized uptake values (SUV)max and (SUV)mean. After comparison with standard imaging, changes in tumor stage/ localization and (radio)oncological management were recorded. Results: The highest uptake of FAPI tracer was observed in liver metastases and anal cancer with a SUVmax of 9.1 and 13.9, respectively. Due to a low background activity in normal tissue, there was a high tumor-to-background ratio of more than 3 in most lesions. In treatment-naïve patients, TNM was changed in 50% while for patients with metastases new findings occurred in 47%. In total, FAPI-imaging caused a high, medium and low change of (radio)oncological management in 19%, 33% and 29%, respectively. For almost every patient undergoing irradiation, target volume delineation was improved by 68Ga-FAPI-PET/CT. Conclusion: The present study demonstrated that both primary and metastatic LGT were reliably detected by 68Ga-FAPI-PET/CT leading to relevant changes in TNM status and (radio)oncological management. 68Ga-FAPI-PET/CT seems to be a highly promising imaging agent for the diagnosis and management of LGT, potentially opening new applications for tumor (re-)staging.




cli

Clinical Translation of a 68Ga-labeled Integrin {alpha}v{beta}6-targeting Cyclic Radiotracer for PET Imaging of Pancreatic Cancer

The overexpression of integrin αvβ6 in pancreatic cancer makes it a promising target for noninvasive positron emission tomography (PET) imaging. However, currently, most integrin αvβ6-targeting radiotracers are based on linear peptides, which are quickly degraded in the serum by proteinases. Herein, we aimed to develop and assess a 68Ga-labeled integrin αvβ6-targeting cyclic peptide (68Ga-cycratide) for PET imaging of pancreatic cancer. Methods: 68Ga-cycratide was prepared, and its PET imaging profile was compared with that of the linear peptide (68Ga-linear-pep) in an integrin αvβ6-positive BxPC-3 human pancreatic cancer mouse model. Five healthy volunteers (two women and three men) underwent whole-body PET/CT imaging after injection of 68Ga-cycratide, and biodistribution and dosimetry calculations were determined. PET/CT imaging of two patients was performed to investigate the potential role of 68Ga-cycratide in pancreatic cancer diagnosis and treatment monitoring. Results: 68Ga-cycratide exhibited significantly higher tumor uptake than did 68Ga-linear-pep in BxPC-3 tumor-bearing mice, owing—at least in part—to markedly improved in vivo stability. 68Ga-cycratide could sensitively detect the pancreatic cancer lesions in an orthotopic mouse model and was well tolerated in all healthy volunteers. Preliminary PET/CT imaging in patients with pancreatic cancer demonstrated that 68Ga-cycratide was comparable to 18F-fludeoxyglucose for diagnostic imaging and post-surgery tumor relapse monitoring. Conclusion: 68Ga-cycratide is an integrin αvβ6-specific PET radiotracer with favorable pharmacokinetics and dosimetry profile. 68Ga-cycratide is expected to provide an effective noninvasive PET strategy for pancreatic cancer lesion detection and therapy response monitoring.




cli

Early prostate-specific antigen changes and clinical outcome following 177Lu-PSMA radionuclide treatment in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

Background: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is widely used to monitor treatment response in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, PSA measurements are considered only after 12 wk of treatment. We aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of early PSA changes following 177Lu-labelled prostate specific membrane antigen (LuPSMA) radionuclide treatment in mCRPC patients. Methods: Men who were treated under a compassionate access program with LuPSMA at our institution and had available PSA values at baseline, at 6 wk after treatment initiation were included in this retrospective analysis. Patients were assigned to three groups based on PSA changes: 1) response: ≥30% decline, 2) progression: ≥25% increase and 3) stable: <30% decline and <25% increase. The co-primary endpoints were overall survival and imaging-based progression-free survival. The secondary end points were PSA changes at 12 wk and PSA flare-up. Results: We identified 124 eligible patients with PSA values at 6 wk. A ≥30% decline in PSA at 6 wk was associated with longer overall survival (median 16.7 mo; 95%CI 14.4–19.0) compared with patients with stable PSA (median: 11.8 mo; 95%CI 8.6–15.1; P = 0.007) and progression (median: 6.5 mo; 95%CI 5.2–7.8; p<0.001). Patients with ≥30% decline in PSA at 6 wk also had a reduced risk of imaging-based progression compared with patients with stable PSA (HR: 0.60; 95%CI 0.38–0.94; P = 0.02), while patients with PSA progression had a higher risk of imaging-based progression compared with those showing stable PSA (HR: 3.18; 95%CI 1.95–5.21; p<0.001). The percentage changes of PSA at 6 wk and 12 wk were highly associated (r=0.90; p<0.001). 29 of 31 (94%) patients who experienced early PSA progression at 6 wk achieved biochemical progression at 12 wk. Overall, only 1 of 36 (3%) patients with PSA progression at 6 wk achieved any PSA decline at 12 wk (1% of the entire cohort). Limitations of the study included its retrospective nature and the single center experience. Conclusion: PSA changes at 6 wk after LuPSMA initiation are an early indicator of long-term clinical outcome. Patients progressing by PSA after 6 wk of treatment could benefit from a very early treatment switch decision. PSA flare-up during LuPSMA treatment is very uncommon. Prospective studies are now warranted to validate our findings and potentially inform clinicians earlier on the effectiveness of LuPSMA.




cli

Initial Clinical Results of a Novel Immuno-PET Theranostic Probe in HER2-negative Breast Cancer

Purpose: This prospective study evaluated the imaging performance of a novel immunological pretargeting positron-emission tomorgraphy (immuno-PET) method in patients with HER2-negative, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA)-positive, metastatic breast cancer (BC), compared to computed tomography (CT), bone magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and 18Fluorodeoxyglucose PET (FDG-PET). Patients and Methods: Twenty-three patients underwent whole-body immuno-PET after injection of 150 MBq 68Ga-IMP288, a histamine-succinyl-glycine peptide given following initial targeting of a trivalent anti-CEA, bispecific, anti-peptide antibody. The gold standards were histology and imaging follow-up. Tumor standard uptake values (SUVmax and SUVmean) were measured, and tumor burden analyzed using Total Tumor Volume (TTV) and Total Lesion Activity (TLA). Results: Total lesion sensitivity of immuno-PET and FDG-PET was 94.7% (1116/1178) and 89.6% (1056/1178), respectively. Immuno-PET had a somewhat higher sensitivity than CT and FDG-PET in lymph nodes (92.4% vs 69.7% and 89.4%, respectively) and liver metastases (97.3% vs 92.1% and 94.8%, respectively), whereas sensitivity was lower for lung metastases (48.3% vs 100% and 75.9%, respectively). Immuno-PET showed higher sensitivity than MRI and FDG-PET for bone lesions (95.8% vs 90.7% and 89.3%, respectively). In contrast to FDG-PET, immuno-PET disclosed brain metastases. Despite equivalent tumor SUVmax, SUVmean, and TTV, TLA was significantly higher with immuno-PET compared to FDG PET (P = 0.009). Conclusion: Immuno-PET using anti-CEA/anti-IMP288 bispecific antibody, followed by 68Ga-IMP288, is a potentially sensitive theranostic imaging method for HER2-negative, CEA-positive, metastatic BC patients, and warrants further research.




cli

Prognostic Value of 18F-FDG PET/CT in a Large Cohort of 495 Patients with Advanced Metastatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms (NEN) Treated with Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy (PRRT)

The objective of this retrospective study was to determine the role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in a large cohort of 495 patients with metastatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) who were treated with peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) with a long-term follow-up. Methods: The 495 patients were treated with 177Lu- and/or 90Y- DOTATOC/DOTATATE PRRT between 2/2002 and 7/2018. All subjects received both 68Ga-DOTATOC/TATE/NOC and 18F-FDG PET/CT prior to treatment and were followed 3-189 months. Kaplan-Meier analysis, log-rank test (Mantel-Cox), and Cox regression analysis were performed for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: 199 patients (40.2%) presented with pancreatic NEN, 49 with CUP (cancer of unknown primary), 139 with midgut NEN, whereas the primary tumor was present in the rectum in 20, in the lung in 38, in the stomach in 8 and other locations in 42 patients. FDG-PET/CT was positive in 382 (77.2%) patients and 113 (22.8%) were FDG-negative before PRRT, while 100% were 68Ga-DOTATOC/TATE/NOC positive. For all patients, the median PFS and OS, defined from start of PRRT, were 19.6 mo and 58.7 mo, respectively. Positive FDG predicted shorter PFS (18.5 mo vs 24.1 mo; P = 0.0015) and OS (53.2 mo vs 83.1 mo; P < 0.001) than negative FDG. Amongst the pancreatic NEN, the median OS was 52.8 mo in FDG positive and 114.3 mo in FDG negative subjects (P = 0.0006). For all patients with positive 18F-FDG uptake, and a ratio of the highest SUVmax on 68Ga-SSTR PET to the most 18F-FDG-avid tumor lesions >2, the median OS was 53.0 mo, compared to 43.4 mo in those patients with a ratio <2 (P = 0.030). For patients with no 18F-FDG uptake (complete "mismatch" imaging pattern), the median OS was 108.3 mo vs 76.9 mo for SUVmax >15.0 and ≤15.0 on 68Ga-SSTR PET/CT, respectively. Conclusion: The presence of positive lesions on 18F-FDG PET is an independent prognostic factor in patients with NEN treated with PRRT. Metabolic imaging with 18F-FDG PET/CT compliments the molecular imaging aspect of 68Ga-SSTR PET/CT for the prognosis of survival after PRRT. High SSTR expression combined with negative 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging is associated with the most favorable long-term prognosis.




cli

11C-PABA as a Novel PET Radiotracer for Functional Renal Imaging: Preclinical and First-in-Human Studies

para-Aminobenzoic acid (PABA) has been previously used as an exogenous marker to verify completion of 24-hour urine sampling. Therefore, we hypothesized that radiolabeled PABA with 11C could allow high-quality dynamic PET of the kidneys while reducing the radiation exposure due to its short biological and physical half-lives. We evaluated if 11C-PABA could visualize renal anatomy and quantify function in healthy rats, rabbits, and first-in-human studies in healthy volunteers. Methods: Healthy rats and rabbits were injected with 11C-PABA intravenously. Subsequently, a dynamic PET was performed, followed by post-mortem tissue biodistribution studies. 11C-PABA PET was directly compared with the current standard, 99mTc-MAG3 in rats. Three healthy human subjects also underwent dynamic PET after intravenous injection of 11C-PABA. Results: In healthy rats and rabbits, dynamic PET demonstrated a rapid accumulation of 11C-PABA in the renal cortex, followed by rapid excretion through the pelvicalyceal system. In humans, 11C-PABA PET was safe and well tolerated. There were no adverse or clinically detectable pharmacologic effects in any subject. The cortex was delineated on PET, and the activity gradually transited to the medulla and then renal pelvis with high spatiotemporal resolution. Conclusion: 11C-PABA demonstrated fast renal excretion with very low background signal in animals and humans. These results suggest that 11C-PABA could be used as a novel radiotracer for functional renal imaging, providing high-quality spatiotemporal images with low radiation exposure.




cli

18F-DCFPyL PET/CT in Patients with Subclinical Recurrence of Prostate Cancer: Effect of Lesion Size, Smooth Filter and Partial Volume Correction on Prostate Cancer Molecular Imaging Standardized Evaluation (PROMISE) criteria

Purpose: To determine the effect of smooth filter and partial volume correction (PVC) method on measured prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) activity in small metastatic lesions and to determine the impact of these changes on the molecular imaging (mi) PSMA scoring. Materials & Methods: Men with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer with negative CT and bone scintigraphy were referred for 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT. Examinations were performed on one of 2 PET/CT scanners (GE Discovery 610 or Siemens mCT40). All suspected tumor sites were manually contoured on co-registered CT and PET images, and each was assigned a miPSMA score as per the PROMISE criteria. The PVC factors were calculated for every lesion using the anatomical CT and then applied to the unsmoothed PET images. The miPSMA scores, with and without the corrections, were compared, and a simplified "rule of thumb" (RoT) correction factor (CF) was derived for lesions at various sizes (<4mm, 4-7mm, 7-9mm, 9-12mm). This was then applied to the original dataset and miPSMA scores obtained using the RoT CF were compared to those found using the actual corrections. Results: There were 75 men (median age, 69 years; median serum PSA of 3.69 ug/L) with 232 metastatic nodes < 12 mm in diameter (mean lesion volume of 313.5 ± 309.6 mm3). Mean SUVmax before and after correction was 11.0 ± 9.3 and 28.5 ± 22.8, respectively (p<0.00001). The mean CF for lesions <4mm (n = 22), 4-7mm (n = 140), 7-9mm (n = 50), 9-12 mm (n = 20) was 4 (range: 2.5-6.4), 2.8 (range: 1.6-4.9), 2.3 (range: 1.6-3.3) and 1.8 (range 1.4-2.4), respectively. Overall miPSMA scores were concordant between the corrected dataset and RoT in 205/232 lesions (88.4%). Conclusion: There is a significant effect of smooth filter and partial volume correction on measured PSMA activity in small nodal metastases, impacting the miPSMA score.




cli

Data Driven Respiratory Gating Outperforms Device-Based Gating for Clinical FDG PET/CT

A data-driven method for respiratory gating in PET has recently been commercially developed. We sought to compare the performance of the algorithm to an external, device-based system for oncological [18F]-FDG PET/CT imaging. Methods: 144 whole-body [18F]-FDG PET/CT examinations were acquired using a Discovery D690 or D710 PET/CT scanner (GE Healthcare), with a respiratory gating waveform recorded by an external, device based respiratory gating system. In each examination, two of the bed positions covering the liver and lung bases were acquired with duration of 6 minutes. Quiescent period gating retaining ~50% of coincidences was then able to produce images with an effective duration of 3 minutes for these two bed positions, matching the other bed positions. For each exam, 4 reconstructions were performed and compared: data driven gating (DDG-retro), external device-based gating (RPM Gated), no gating but using only the first 3 minutes of data (Ungated Matched), and no gating retaining all coincidences (Ungated Full). Lesions in the images were quantified and image quality was scored by a radiologist, blinded to the method of data processing. Results: The use of DDG-retro was found to increase SUVmax and to decrease the threshold-defined lesion volume in comparison to each of the other reconstruction options. Compared to RPM-gated, DDG-retro gave an average increase in SUVmax of 0.66 ± 0.1 g/mL (n=87, p<0.0005). Although results from the blinded image evaluation were most commonly equivalent, DDG-retro was preferred over RPM gated in 13% of exams while the opposite occurred in just 2% of exams. This was a significant preference for DDG-retro (p=0.008, n=121). Liver lesions were identified in 23 exams. Considering this subset of data, DDG-retro was ranked superior to Ungated Full in 6/23 (26%) of cases. Gated reconstruction using the external device failed in 16% of exams, while DDG-retro always provided a clinically acceptable image. Conclusion: In this clinical evaluation, the data driven respiratory gating technique provided superior performance as compared to the external device-based system. For the majority of exams the performance was equivalent, but data driven respiratory gating had superior performance in 13% of exams, leading to a significant preference overall.




cli

Targeting Fibroblast Activation Protein:Radiosynthesis and Preclinical Evaluation of an 18F-labeled FAP Inhibitor

Fibroblast activation protein (FAP) has emerged as an interesting molecular target used in the imaging and therapy of various types of cancers. Gallium-68–labeled chelator-linked FAP inhibitors (FAPIs) have been successfully applied to positron emission tomography (PET) imaging of various tumor types. To broaden the spectrum of applicable PET tracers for extended imaging studies of FAP-dependent diseases, we herein report the radiosynthesis and preclinical evaluation of an 18F–labeled glycosylated FAP inhibitor ([18F]FGlc-FAPI). Methods: An alkyne-bearing precursor was synthesized and subjected to click chemistry–based radiosynthesis of [18F]FGlc-FAPI by two-step 18F-fluoroglycosylation. FAP-expressing HT1080hFAP cells were used to study competitive binding to FAP, cellular uptake, internalization, and efflux of [18F]FGlc-FAPI in vitro. Biodistribution studies and in vivo small animal PET studies of [18F]FGlc-FAPI compared to [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-04 were conducted in nude mice bearing HT1080hFAP tumors or U87MG xenografts. Results: [18F]FGlc-FAPI was synthesized with a 15% radioactivity yield and a high radiochemical purity of >99%. In HT1080hFAP cells, [18F]FGlc-FAPI showed specific uptake, a high internalized fraction, and low cellular efflux. Compared to FAPI-04 (IC50 = 32 nM), the glycoconjugate, FGlc-FAPI (IC50 = 167 nM), showed slightly lower affinity for FAP in vitro, while plasma protein binding was higher for [18F]FGlc-FAPI. Biodistribution studies revealed significant hepatobiliary excretion of [18F]FGlc-FAPI; however, small animal PET studies in HT1080hFAP xenografts showed higher specific tumor uptake of [18F]FGlc-FAPI (4.5 % injected dose per gram of tissue [ID/g]) compared to [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-04 (2 %ID/g). In U87MG tumor–bearing mice, both tracers showed similar tumor uptake, but [18F]FGlc-FAPI showed a higher tumor retention. Interestingly, [18F]FGlc-FAPI demonstrated high specific uptake in bone structures and joints. Conclusion: [18F]FGlc-FAPI is an interesting candidate for translation to the clinic, taking advantage of the longer half-life and physical imaging properties of F-18. The availability of [18F]FGlc-FAPI may allow extended PET studies of FAP-related diseases, such as cancer, but also arthritis, heart diseases, or pulmonary fibrosis.




cli

The Impact of Radiobiologically-Informed Dose Prescription on the Clinical Benefit of Yttrium-90 SIRT in Colorectal Cancer Patients

The purpose of this study was to establish the dose-response relationship of selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), when informed by radiobiological sensitivity parameters derived from mCRC cell lines exposed to yttrium-90 (90Y). Methods: 23 mCRC patients with liver metastases refractory to chemotherapy were included. 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT images were transformed into dose maps assuming the local dose deposition method. Baseline and follow-up CT scans were segmented to derive liver and tumor volumes. Mean, median, and D70 (minimum dose to 70% of tumor volume) values determined from dose maps were correlated with change in tumor volume and vRECIST response using linear and logistic regression, respectively. Radiosensitivity parameters determined by clonogenic assays of mCRC cell lines HT-29 and DLD-1 after exposure to 90Y or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT; 6MV photons) were used in biological effective dose (BED) calculations. Results: Mean administered radioactivity was 1469±428 MBq (847-2185 MBq), achieving a mean radiation absorbed tumor dose of 35.5±9.4 Gy and mean normal liver dose of 26.4±6.8 Gy. A 1.0 Gy increase in mean, median, and D70 absorbed dose was associated with reduction in tumor volume of 1.8%, 1.8%, and 1.5%, respectively, and increased probability of vRECIST response (odds ratio: 1.09, 1.09, and 1.10 respectively). Threshold mean, median and D70 doses for response were 48.3, 48.8, and 41.8 Gy respectively. EBRT-equivalent BEDs for 90Y are up to 50% smaller than those calculated by applying protraction-corrected radiobiological parameters derived from EBRT alone. Conclusion: Dosimetric studies have assumed equivalence between 90Y SIRT and EBRT, leading to inflation of BED for SIRT and possible under-treatment. Radiobiological parameters for 90Y were applied to a BED model, providing a calculation method that has the potential to improve assessment of tumor control.




cli

Impact of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET on the Management of recurrent Prostate Cancer in a Prospective Single-Arm Clinical Trial

Introduction: Prostate-specific membrane antigen ligand positron emission tomography (PSMA PET) induces management changes in patients with prostate cancer. We aim to better characterize the impact of PSMA PET on management of recurrent prostate cancer in a large prospective cohort. Methods: We report management changes following PSMA PET, a secondary endpoint of a prospective multicenter trial in men with prostate cancer biochemical recurrence. Pre-PET (Q1), Post-PET (Q2) and Post-Treatment (Q3) questionnaires were sent to referring physicians recording site of recurrence, intended (Q1 to Q2 change) and implemented (Q3) therapeutic and diagnostic management. Results: Q1/Q2 response was collected for 382/635 (60%, intended cohort), Q1/Q2/Q3 for 206 patients (32%, implemented cohort). Intended management change (Q1/2) occurred in 260/382 (68%) patients. Intended change (Q1/2) was considered major in 176/382 (46%) patients. Major changes occurred most often for patients with PSA of 0.5 to <2.0 ng/mL (81/147, 55%). By analysis of stage-groups, management change was consistent with PET disease location, i.e. majority of major changes towards active surveillance (47%) for unknown disease site (103/382, 27%), towards local/focal therapy (56%) for locoregional disease (126/382, 33%), and towards systemic therapy (69% M1a; 43% M1b/c) for metastatic disease (153/382, 40%). According to Q3 responses, intended management was implemented in 160/206 (78%) patients. A total of 150 intended diagnostic tests, mostly CT (n = 43, 29%) and bone Scans/NaF-PET (n = 52, 35%), were prevented by PSMA PET; 73 tests, mostly biopsies (n = 44, 60%) as requested by the study protocol, were triggered (Q1/2). Conclusion: According to referring physicians, sites of recurrence were clarified by PSMA PET and disease localization translated into management changes in more than half of patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer.




cli

To Advance Trade and Climate Goals, ‘Global Britain’ Must Link Them

19 March 2020

Carolyn Deere Birkbeck

Associate Fellow, Global Economy and Finance Programme, and Hoffmann Centre for Sustainable Resource Economy

Dr Emily Jones

Associate Professor, Blavatnik School of Government

Dr Thomas Hale

Associate Professor, Blavatnik School of Government
COVID-19 is a sharp reminder of why trade policy matters. As the UK works to forge new trade deals, it must align its trade policy agenda with its climate ambition.

2020-03-19-Boris-Johnson-COP26.jpg

Boris Johnson at the launch of the UK-hosted COP26 UN Climate Summit at the Science Museum, London on February 4, 2020. Photo by Jeremy Selwyn - WPA Pool/Getty Images.

COVID-19 is a sharp reminder of why trade and climate policy matters. How can governments maintain access to critical goods and services, and ensure global supply chains function in times of crisis?

The timing of many trade negotiations is now increasingly uncertain, as are the UK’s plans to host COP26 in November. Policy work continues, however, and the EU has released its draft negotiating text for the new UK-EU trade deal, which includes a sub-chapter specifically devoted to climate. 

This is a timely reminder both of the pressing need for the UK to integrate its trade and climate policymaking and to use the current crisis-induced breathing space in international negotiations - however limited - to catch up on both strategy and priorities on this critical policy intersection.

The UK government has moved fast to reset its external trade relations post-Brexit. In the past month it formally launched bilateral negotiations with the EU and took up a seat at the World Trade Organization (WTO) as an independent member. Until the COVID-19 crisis hit, negotiations were also poised to start with the US.

The UK is also in the climate spotlight as host of COP26, the most important international climate negotiation since Paris in 2015, which presents a vital opportunity for the government to show leadership by aligning its trade agenda with its climate and sustainability commitments in bold new ways.

Not just an empty aspiration

This would send a signal that ‘Global Britain’ is not just an empty aspiration, but a concrete commitment to lead.

Not only is concerted action on the climate crisis a central priority for UK citizens, a growing and increasingly vocal group of UK businesses committed to decarbonization are calling on the government to secure a more transparent and predictable international market place that supports climate action by business.

With COP26, the UK has a unique responsibility to push governments to ratchet up ambition in the national contributions to climate action – and to promote coherence between climate ambition and wider economic policymaking, including on trade. If Britain really wants to lead, here are some concrete actions it should take.

At the national level, the UK can pioneer new ways to put environmental sustainability – and climate action in particular - at the heart of its trade agenda. Achieving the government’s ambitious Clean Growth Strategy - which seeks to make the UK the global leader in a range of industries including electric cars and offshore wind – should be a central objective of UK trade policy.

The UK should re-orient trade policy frameworks to incentivize the shift toward a more circular and net zero global economy. And all elements of UK trade policy could be assessed against environmental objectives - for example, their contribution to phasing out fossil fuels, helping to reverse overexploitation of natural resources, and support for sustainable agriculture and biodiversity.

In its bilateral and regional trade negotiations, the UK can and should advance its environment, climate and trade goals in tandem, and implementation of the Paris Agreement must be a core objective of the UK trade strategy.

A core issue for the UK is how to ensure that efforts to decarbonise the economy are not undercut by imports from high-carbon producers. Here, a ‘border carbon adjustment (BCA)’ - effectively a tax on the climate pollution of imports - would support UK climate goals. The EU draft negotiating text released yesterday put the issue of BCAs front and centre, making crystal clear that the intersection of climate, environment and trade policy goals will be a central issue for UK-EU trade negotiations.

Even with the United States, a trade deal can and should still be seized as a way to incentivize the shift toward a net zero and more circular economy. At the multilateral level, as a new independent WTO member, the UK has an opportunity to help build a forward-looking climate and trade agenda.

The UK could help foster dialogue, research and action on a cluster of ‘climate and trade’ issues that warrant more focused attention at the WTO. These include the design of carbon pricing policies at the border that are transparent, fair and support a just transition; proposals for a climate waiver for WTO rules; and identification of ways multilateral trade cooperation could promote a zero carbon and more circular global economy.  

To help nudge multilateral discussion along, the UK could also ask to join a critical ‘path finder’ effort by six governments, led by New Zealand, to pursue an agreement on climate change, trade and sustainability (ACCTS). This group aims to find ways forward on three central trade and climate issues: removing fossil fuel subsidies, climate-related labelling, and promoting trade in climate-friendly goods and services.

At present, the complex challenges at the intersection of climate, trade and development policy are too often used to defer or side-step issues deemed ‘too hard’ or ‘too sensitive’ to tackle. The UK could help here by working to ensure multilateral climate and trade initiatives share adjustment burdens, recognise the historical responsibility of developed countries, and do not unfairly disadvantage developing countries - especially the least developed.

Many developing countries are keen to promote climate-friendly exports as part of wider export diversification strategies  and want to reap greater returns from greener global value chains. Further, small island states and least-developed countries – many of which are Commonwealth members – that are especially vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and natural disasters, need support to adapt in the face of trade shocks and to build climate-resilient, trade-related infrastructure and export sectors.

As an immediate next step, the UK should actively support the growing number of WTO members in favour of a WTO Ministerial Statement on environmental sustainability and trade. It should work with its key trading partners in the Commonwealth and beyond to ensure the agenda is inclusive, supports achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and helps developing countries benefit from a more environmentally sustainable global economy.

As the UK prepares to host COP26, negotiates deals with the EU and US, and prepares for its first WTO Ministerial meeting as an independent member, it must show it can lead the way nationally, bilaterally, and multilaterally. And to ensure the government acts, greater engagement from the UK’s business, civil society and research sectors is critical – we need all hands on deck to forge and promote concrete proposals for aligning UK trade policy with the climate ambition our world needs.




cli

To Advance Trade and Climate Goals, ‘Global Britain’ Must Link Them

19 March 2020

Carolyn Deere Birkbeck

Associate Fellow, Global Economy and Finance Programme, and Hoffmann Centre for Sustainable Resource Economy

Dr Emily Jones

Associate Professor, Blavatnik School of Government

Dr Thomas Hale

Associate Professor, Blavatnik School of Government
COVID-19 is a sharp reminder of why trade policy matters. As the UK works to forge new trade deals, it must align its trade policy agenda with its climate ambition.

2020-03-19-Boris-Johnson-COP26.jpg

Boris Johnson at the launch of the UK-hosted COP26 UN Climate Summit at the Science Museum, London on February 4, 2020. Photo by Jeremy Selwyn - WPA Pool/Getty Images.

COVID-19 is a sharp reminder of why trade and climate policy matters. How can governments maintain access to critical goods and services, and ensure global supply chains function in times of crisis?

The timing of many trade negotiations is now increasingly uncertain, as are the UK’s plans to host COP26 in November. Policy work continues, however, and the EU has released its draft negotiating text for the new UK-EU trade deal, which includes a sub-chapter specifically devoted to climate. 

This is a timely reminder both of the pressing need for the UK to integrate its trade and climate policymaking and to use the current crisis-induced breathing space in international negotiations - however limited - to catch up on both strategy and priorities on this critical policy intersection.

The UK government has moved fast to reset its external trade relations post-Brexit. In the past month it formally launched bilateral negotiations with the EU and took up a seat at the World Trade Organization (WTO) as an independent member. Until the COVID-19 crisis hit, negotiations were also poised to start with the US.

The UK is also in the climate spotlight as host of COP26, the most important international climate negotiation since Paris in 2015, which presents a vital opportunity for the government to show leadership by aligning its trade agenda with its climate and sustainability commitments in bold new ways.

Not just an empty aspiration

This would send a signal that ‘Global Britain’ is not just an empty aspiration, but a concrete commitment to lead.

Not only is concerted action on the climate crisis a central priority for UK citizens, a growing and increasingly vocal group of UK businesses committed to decarbonization are calling on the government to secure a more transparent and predictable international market place that supports climate action by business.

With COP26, the UK has a unique responsibility to push governments to ratchet up ambition in the national contributions to climate action – and to promote coherence between climate ambition and wider economic policymaking, including on trade. If Britain really wants to lead, here are some concrete actions it should take.

At the national level, the UK can pioneer new ways to put environmental sustainability – and climate action in particular - at the heart of its trade agenda. Achieving the government’s ambitious Clean Growth Strategy - which seeks to make the UK the global leader in a range of industries including electric cars and offshore wind – should be a central objective of UK trade policy.

The UK should re-orient trade policy frameworks to incentivize the shift toward a more circular and net zero global economy. And all elements of UK trade policy could be assessed against environmental objectives - for example, their contribution to phasing out fossil fuels, helping to reverse overexploitation of natural resources, and support for sustainable agriculture and biodiversity.

In its bilateral and regional trade negotiations, the UK can and should advance its environment, climate and trade goals in tandem, and implementation of the Paris Agreement must be a core objective of the UK trade strategy.

A core issue for the UK is how to ensure that efforts to decarbonise the economy are not undercut by imports from high-carbon producers. Here, a ‘border carbon adjustment (BCA)’ - effectively a tax on the climate pollution of imports - would support UK climate goals. The EU draft negotiating text released yesterday put the issue of BCAs front and centre, making crystal clear that the intersection of climate, environment and trade policy goals will be a central issue for UK-EU trade negotiations.

Even with the United States, a trade deal can and should still be seized as a way to incentivize the shift toward a net zero and more circular economy. At the multilateral level, as a new independent WTO member, the UK has an opportunity to help build a forward-looking climate and trade agenda.

The UK could help foster dialogue, research and action on a cluster of ‘climate and trade’ issues that warrant more focused attention at the WTO. These include the design of carbon pricing policies at the border that are transparent, fair and support a just transition; proposals for a climate waiver for WTO rules; and identification of ways multilateral trade cooperation could promote a zero carbon and more circular global economy.  

To help nudge multilateral discussion along, the UK could also ask to join a critical ‘path finder’ effort by six governments, led by New Zealand, to pursue an agreement on climate change, trade and sustainability (ACCTS). This group aims to find ways forward on three central trade and climate issues: removing fossil fuel subsidies, climate-related labelling, and promoting trade in climate-friendly goods and services.

At present, the complex challenges at the intersection of climate, trade and development policy are too often used to defer or side-step issues deemed ‘too hard’ or ‘too sensitive’ to tackle. The UK could help here by working to ensure multilateral climate and trade initiatives share adjustment burdens, recognise the historical responsibility of developed countries, and do not unfairly disadvantage developing countries - especially the least developed.

Many developing countries are keen to promote climate-friendly exports as part of wider export diversification strategies  and want to reap greater returns from greener global value chains. Further, small island states and least-developed countries – many of which are Commonwealth members – that are especially vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and natural disasters, need support to adapt in the face of trade shocks and to build climate-resilient, trade-related infrastructure and export sectors.

As an immediate next step, the UK should actively support the growing number of WTO members in favour of a WTO Ministerial Statement on environmental sustainability and trade. It should work with its key trading partners in the Commonwealth and beyond to ensure the agenda is inclusive, supports achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and helps developing countries benefit from a more environmentally sustainable global economy.

As the UK prepares to host COP26, negotiates deals with the EU and US, and prepares for its first WTO Ministerial meeting as an independent member, it must show it can lead the way nationally, bilaterally, and multilaterally. And to ensure the government acts, greater engagement from the UK’s business, civil society and research sectors is critical – we need all hands on deck to forge and promote concrete proposals for aligning UK trade policy with the climate ambition our world needs.




cli

Climate Change: Avoiding Climate Crunch

1 November 2008 , Number 6

A new climate is likely at the United Nations climate change conference in Poland early this month and not just because of the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States. The international financial crisis has highlighted the cost of poor policies and the scale of banking bailouts has made dealing with climate change seem less formidable. Besides, such schemes could create new jobs and give an edge to the competitive economies of tomorrow.

Bernice Lee OBE

Research Director; Executive Director, Hoffmann Centre for Sustainable Resource Economy




cli

Cognitive symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease: clinical management and prevention




cli

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

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.




cli

Exercise Combats Hepatic Steatosis: Potential Mechanisms and Clinical Implications

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.




cli

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]

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.




cli

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

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




cli

Brexit and the UN Security Council: declining British influence?

6 November 2019 , Volume 95, Number 6

Jess Gifkins, Samuel Jarvis and Jason Ralph

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.




cli

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

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.




cli

Cli·ché

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. […]




cli

Climate Change 2012

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
 




cli

The UK's Vision for Tackling Climate Change

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.




cli

Delivering Concrete Climate Change Action

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




cli

Climate Change: Raising Ambition, Delivering Results

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

1
3:10 End of conference and lunch

 © The Royal Institute of International Affairs 2014

Keynote Speakers

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




cli

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

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.

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.




cli

EU Lays Down Marker for Global Climate Action

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 




cli

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

12 March 2015 , Volume 91, Number 2

Reinhard Wolf




cli

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

Research Event

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

Chatham House, London

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.




cli

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

6 November 2015 , Volume 91, Number 6

 

 

Shirley V. Scott




cli

A Good Deal? Assessing the Paris Climate Agreement

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. 

Owen Grafham

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




cli

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

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.

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.




cli

Post-Paris: Taking Forward the Global Climate Change Deal

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.




cli

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

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.

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.




cli

The UK's Decision to Leave the EU: What Next for UK Energy and Climate?

Invitation Only Research Event

12 July 2016 - 3:00pm to 6:30pm

Chatham House, London

In May 2016, Chatham House published a research paper that assessed the options for the UK’s climate and energy policy in the event of a British vote to leave the EU. It determined that:

  • The UK’s energy market is deeply integrated with that of its European neighbours and that it would be neither possible nor desirable to ‘unplug’ the UK from Europe’s energy networks. A degree of continued adherence to EU market regulations, energy efficiency standards of appliances, environmental and governance rules would be inevitable. 
  • The EU’s collective negotiation on international climate issues has given the UK greater political weight than any member state has alone.
  • The EU’s coordinated approach in engaging with major fossil fuel producers such as Russia and countries in the Middle East has helped support price stability and security of supply, including through infrastructure investment to make existing pipeline systems more efficient and improve storage and capacity.   

In light of the decision to leave, Chatham House is hosting a roundtable to reassess the options for a future UK-EU energy and climate change partnership. The meeting will bring together those experienced on UK and EU policy in both climate change and energy and explore the short and medium-term climate and energy policy considerations. 

Attendance at this event is by invitation only.

Owen Grafham

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




cli

Security and Climate Change: Are we Living in 'The Age of Consequences'?

Research Event

1 December 2016 - 7:00pm to 9:00pm

Chatham House, London

Event participants

Brigadier General Stephen A. Cheney, CEO, American Security Project; Member, Foreign Affairs Policy Board, US Department of State
Major General Munir Muniruzzaman, President and CEO, Bangladesh Institute of Peace and Security Studies; Former Military Advisor to the President of Bangladesh 
Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti, Director of Strategy, UK Department of Science, Technology, Engineering and Public Policy; University College London; Former UK Government Climate and Energy Security Envoy
Dr Patricia Lewis, Research Director, International Security, Chatham House
Chair: Rt Hon Sir Oliver Letwin MP, Former UK Cabinet Office Minister

The US Department of Defense regards climate change as an ‘accelerant of instability and conflict’. A former head of the US Pacific Command described it as the most significant long-term security threat in his region. US federal agencies have recently been mandated to fully consider the impacts of climate change in the development of national security policy. This step-change in the US approach reflects the Pentagon’s conclusion that climate impacts are a ‘threat multiplier’ for security concerns – not just for the future – but which pose ‘an immediate risk to national security’.

A new documentary from the US, The Age of Consequences, explores the links between climate change and security, including in current events in Syria, Egypt, the Sahel and Bangladesh. Our high-level panel will reflect on key sections from the documentary, which will be screened during the event, and explore whether security strategists, militaries and policy-makers in nations other than the US are fully cognisant of the risks posed by a changing climate, and whether they are ready to anticipate and respond to its potentially destabilizing effects.

The panel discussion will be followed by a Q&A.

THIS EVENT IS NOW FULL AND REGISTRATION HAS CLOSED.




cli

The Climate vs. Donald Trump

19 November 2016

Rob Bailey

Former Research Director, Energy, Environment and Resources
All countries stand to lose if the US backslides on climate change, most of all the US.

2016-11-19-COP22.jpg

Outside the COP22 Climate Change Conference in Marrakech. Photo by Getty Images.

On 7 November, as governments reconvened in Marrakech for the first major round of climate talks since the momentous Paris summit, they had the wind in their sails. The sense of momentum that had built in the run-up to Paris had continued, with recent global deals to phase out HFCs (potent greenhouse gases used in refrigeration and air conditioning) and tackle emissions from aviation. However, by the morning of 9 November the mood changed to one of unease and trepidation, as news of Donald Trump’s US election victory sunk in. Only days after entering into force, the Paris Agreement was faced with the possibility of the world’s second largest emitter, and a key dealmaker and architect of the regime, withdrawing.

Although details of Trump’s positions on climate and energy policy are scarce, his statements on the campaign trail appear to signal a marked departure from the Obama administration’s approach. The president-elect has said he would ‘cancel’ the Paris Agreement and ‘rescind’ the Climate Action Plan which underpins US action to reduce emissions. On the basis of these statements, it is hard to view the election result as anything other than a major setback for the climate. The new international climate regime now faces a very early and very big test.

Paris’s first test

The response from governments has been swift. Statement after statement emphasized a clear and consistent message: countries remain committed to the Paris Agreement and to delivering their emissions reductions. While there is hope that the US will remain a part, the message was that the process will continue regardless. Importantly, there have as yet been no indications that recusant parties to the agreement might use a US withdrawal as cover to do the same.

This display of unity is arguably Marrakech’s defining success. Progress in talks to flesh out the so-called ‘rulebook’ for how the Paris Agreement will operate come 2020 was modest in some areas and disappointing in others; on finance, the perennial tensions between developed and developing countries were as clear as ever. But when the time came to uphold the nascent regime in the face of a threat, powerful international norms on climate action meant there were no divisions.

Two important questions

The prospect of US disengagement from the international regime, whether de jure or de facto, raises two important questions: one for the US and another for the rest of the world.

For the international community, the question is one of leadership. In the run-up to Paris, the US and China together set expectations for a global agreement, signalling their intent through a series of joint announcements that set the bar for ambition and carried other countries with them. Progressive countries hoped this partnership would re-emerge in 2018, when talks begin on closing the gap between national emission reduction plans and what is needed to achieve the Paris goal of containing warming ‘well below’ 2°C. A wholesale step change in ambition is required if the 2°C goal is to remain within reach, requiring intense climate diplomacy of the kind witnessed before Paris. Will China be prepared to unilaterally set the pace and raise ambition first? Will a new partner come forward, or new coalition emerge, to fill the vacuum left by the US and work alongside China to provide leadership?

The US faces a question of national interest. With the rest of the world apparently united on climate change, what costs might the US incur were it to withdraw from the global regime? To fly in the face of strong international norms on climate action would certainly erode American soft power and concede global status to China, which continues to signal its ambition to decarbonize. And with the US expected to take a more protectionist approach to trade, it is possible that other countries, frustrated at US free-riding on the emissions reductions of others, might impose tariffs on American imports to adjust for the lower emissions costs of US exporters. Nor will American prosperity be served by the US economy remaining shackled to fossil fuels while the rest of the world’s economy transitions away from them. All countries stand to lose if the US backslides on climate change, most of all the US.

To comment on this article, please contact Chatham House Feedback




cli

The Impacts of the Demand for Woody Biomass for Power and Heat on Climate and Forests

23 February 2017

Although most renewable energy policy frameworks treat biomass as carbon-neutral at the point of combustion, biomass emits more carbon per unit of energy than most fossil fuels. 

Duncan Brack

Associate Fellow, Energy, Environment and Resources Programme

2017-02-15-woody-biomass-climate-forests-brack.jpg

Fuel composed of wood chips to be used for the UEM (Usine d’Electricité de Metz) biomass plant in Metz, eastern France. Photo: Getty Images.

Summary

  • The use of wood for electricity generation and heat in modern (non-traditional) technologies has grown rapidly in recent years, and has the potential to continue to do so.
  • The EU has been, and remains, the main global source of demand, as a result of its targets for renewable energy. This demand is largely met by its own forest resources and supplemented by imports from the US, Canada and Russia.
  • Countries outside the EU, including the US, China, Japan and South Korea, have the potential to increase the use of biomass (including agricultural residues as well as wood), but so far this has not taken place at scale, partly because of the falling costs of competing renewables such as solar PV and wind. However, the role of biomass as a system balancer, and its supposed ability, in combination with carbon capture and storage technology, to generate negative emissions, seem likely to keep it in contention in the future.
  • Although most renewable energy policy frameworks treat biomass as though it is carbon-neutral at the point of combustion, in reality this cannot be assumed, as biomass emits more carbon per unit of energy than most fossil fuels. Only residues that would otherwise have been burnt as waste or would have been left in the forest and decayed rapidly can be considered to be carbon-neutral over the short to medium term.
  • One reason for the perception of biomass as carbon-neutral is the fact that, under IPCC greenhouse gas accounting rules, its associated emissions are recorded in the land use rather than the energy sector. However, the different ways in which land use emissions are accounted for means that a proportion of the emissions from biomass may never be accounted for.
  • In principle, sustainability criteria can ensure that only biomass with the lowest impact on the climate are used; the current criteria in use in some EU member states and under development in the EU, however, do not achieve this as they do not account for changes in forest carbon stock.

Also see Woody Biomass for Power and Heat: Impacts on the Global Climate, which assesses the impact of the use of biomass for energy on greenhouse gas emissions, how these are accounted for under international climate accounting rules, and analyses the sustainability criteria currently in use and under development to minimise negative impacts.




cli

Airbnb laying off 1,900 employees due to travel decline

Airbnb says it is laying off 25% of its workforce as it confronts a steep decline in global travel due to the new coronavirus pandemic. It’s a serious setback for the 12-year-old home-sharing company, which just a few months ago was...




cli

Vinay Prasad - there is overdiagnosis in clinical trials

We want clinical trials to be thorough - but Vinay Prasad, assistant professor of medicine at Oregon Health Science University, argues that the problem of overdiagnosis may be as prevalent, in the way we measure disease in our research, as our practice. In this podcast he joins us to discuss the problem, and why he thinks what qualifies as...




cli

Talk Evidence - Z drugs, subclinical hypothyroidism and Drazen's dozen

This week on the podcast, (2.02) a listener asks, when we suggest something to stop, should we suggest an alternative instead? (8.24) Helen tells us to stop putting people on treatment for subclinical hypothyroidism, but what does that mean for people who are already receiving thyroxine? (20.55) Carl has a black box warning about z drugs, and...




cli

Climate change will make universal health coverage precarious

The BMJ in partnership with The Harvard Global Health Institute has launched a collection of articles exploring how to achieve effective universal health coverage (UHC). The collection highlights the importance of quality in UHC, potential finance models, how best to incentivise stakeholders, and some of the barriers to true UHC. One of those...