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 By jnm.snmjournals.org Published On :: 2020-01-10T04:59:09-08:00 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. Full Article
cli Demarcation of Sepsis-Induced Peripheral and Central Acidosis with pH-Low Insertion Cyclic (pHLIC) Peptide By jnm.snmjournals.org Published On :: 2020-01-31T13:36:41-08:00 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. Full Article
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 By jnm.snmjournals.org Published On :: 2020-01-31T13:36:41-08:00 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. Full Article
cli In vivo instability of 177Lu-DOTATATE during peptide receptor radionuclide therapy By jnm.snmjournals.org Published On :: 2020-01-31T13:36:41-08:00 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. Full Article
cli Efficacy of Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy for Esthesioneuroblastoma By jnm.snmjournals.org Published On :: 2020-01-31T13:36:41-08:00 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. Full Article
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 By jnm.snmjournals.org Published On :: 2020-02-07T14:31:42-08:00 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. Full Article
cli Clinical evaluation of a data-driven respiratory gating algorithm for whole-body positron emission tomography with continuous bed motion By jnm.snmjournals.org Published On :: 2020-02-14T14:01:21-08:00 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. Full Article
cli The role of FAPI-PET/CT for patients with malignancies of the lower gastrointestinal tract - first clinical experience By jnm.snmjournals.org Published On :: 2020-02-14T14:01:21-08:00 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. Full Article
cli Clinical Translation of a 68Ga-labeled Integrin {alpha}v{beta}6-targeting Cyclic Radiotracer for PET Imaging of Pancreatic Cancer By jnm.snmjournals.org Published On :: 2020-02-21T14:46:23-08:00 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. Full Article
cli Early prostate-specific antigen changes and clinical outcome following 177Lu-PSMA radionuclide treatment in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer By jnm.snmjournals.org Published On :: 2020-02-28T13:52:17-08:00 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. Full Article
cli Initial Clinical Results of a Novel Immuno-PET Theranostic Probe in HER2-negative Breast Cancer By jnm.snmjournals.org Published On :: 2020-03-13T14:12:30-07:00 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. Full Article
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) By jnm.snmjournals.org Published On :: 2020-03-13T14:12:30-07:00 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. Full Article
cli 11C-PABA as a Novel PET Radiotracer for Functional Renal Imaging: Preclinical and First-in-Human Studies By jnm.snmjournals.org Published On :: 2020-03-20T13:59:23-07:00 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. Full Article
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 By jnm.snmjournals.org Published On :: 2020-03-20T13:59:23-07:00 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. Full Article
cli Data Driven Respiratory Gating Outperforms Device-Based Gating for Clinical FDG PET/CT By jnm.snmjournals.org Published On :: 2020-04-03T15:14:37-07:00 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. Full Article
cli Targeting Fibroblast Activation Protein:Radiosynthesis and Preclinical Evaluation of an 18F-labeled FAP Inhibitor By jnm.snmjournals.org Published On :: 2020-04-24T14:33:41-07:00 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. Full Article
cli The Impact of Radiobiologically-Informed Dose Prescription on the Clinical Benefit of Yttrium-90 SIRT in Colorectal Cancer Patients By jnm.snmjournals.org Published On :: 2020-05-01T11:16:57-07:00 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. Full Article
cli Impact of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET on the Management of recurrent Prostate Cancer in a Prospective Single-Arm Clinical Trial By jnm.snmjournals.org Published On :: 2020-05-01T11:16:57-07:00 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. Full Article
cli To Advance Trade and Climate Goals, ‘Global Britain’ Must Link Them By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 17:12:54 +0000 19 March 2020 Carolyn Deere Birkbeck Associate Fellow, Global Economy and Finance Programme, and Hoffmann Centre for Sustainable Resource Economy @carolyndeere LinkedIn Google Scholar 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 aspirationThis 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. Full Article
cli To Advance Trade and Climate Goals, ‘Global Britain’ Must Link Them By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 17:12:54 +0000 19 March 2020 Carolyn Deere Birkbeck Associate Fellow, Global Economy and Finance Programme, and Hoffmann Centre for Sustainable Resource Economy @carolyndeere LinkedIn Google Scholar 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 aspirationThis 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. Full Article
cli Climate Change: Avoiding Climate Crunch By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 14:22:12 +0000 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 @BerniceWLee climateAkuppaJohnWigham_1.jpg Full Article
cli Cognitive symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease: clinical management and prevention By feeds.bmj.com Published On :: Friday, December 6, 2019 - 11:00 Full Article
cli Novel Detection and Restorative Levodopa Treatment for Pre-Clinical Diabetic Retinopathy By diabetes.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2020-02-12T12:37:27-08:00 Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is diagnosed clinically by directly viewing retinal vascular changes during ophthalmoscopy or through fundus photographs. However, electroretinography (ERG) studies in humans and rodents have revealed that retinal dysfunction is demonstrable prior to the development of visible vascular defects. Specifically, delays in dark-adapted ERG oscillatory potential (OP) implicit times in response to dim flash stimuli (<-1.8 log cd·s/m2) occur prior to clinically-recognized diabetic retinopathy. Animal studies suggest that retinal dopamine deficiency underlies these early functional deficits. Here, we randomized persons with diabetes, without clinically detectable retinopathy, to treatment with either low or high dose Sinemet (levodopa plus carbidopa) for 2 weeks and compared their ERG findings with those of control (no DM) subjects. We assessed dim flash stimulated OP delays using a novel hand-held ERG system (RETeval) at baseline, 2 and 4 weeks. RETeval recordings identified significant OP implicit-time delays in persons with diabetes without retinopathy compared to age-matched controls (p<0.001). After two weeks of Sinemet treatment, OP implicit times were restored to control values, and these improvements persisted even after a two-week washout. We conclude that detection of dim flash OP delays could provide early detection of DR, and that Sinemet treatment may reverse retinal dysfunction. Full Article
cli Exercise Combats Hepatic Steatosis: Potential Mechanisms and Clinical Implications By diabetes.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2020-03-20T11:50:28-07:00 Hepatic steatosis, the excess storage of intrahepatic lipids, is a rampant clinical problem associated with the obesity epidemic. Hepatic steatosis is linked to increased risk for insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular and advanced liver disease. Accumulating evidence shows that physical activity, exercise, and aerobic capacity have profound effects on regulating intrahepatic lipids and mediating susceptibility for hepatic steatosis. Moreover, exercise can effectively reduce hepatic steatosis independent of changes in body mass. In this perspective, we highlight 1) the relationship between obesity and metabolic pathways putatively driving hepatic steatosis compared with changes induced by exercise; 2) the impact of physical activity, exercise, and aerobic capacity compared with caloric restriction on regulating intrahepatic lipids and steatosis risk; 3) the effects of exercise training (modalities, volume, intensity) for treatment of hepatic steatosis, and 4) evidence for a sustained protection against steatosis induced by exercise. Overall, evidence clearly indicates that exercise powerfully regulates intrahepatic storage of fat and risk for steatosis. Full Article
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] By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: 2020-04-24T06:08:45-07:00 Lens proteins become increasingly cross-linked through nondisulfide linkages during aging and cataract formation. One mechanism that has been implicated in this cross-linking is glycation through formation of advanced glycation end products (AGEs). Here, we found an age-associated increase in stiffness in human lenses that was directly correlated with levels of protein–cross-linking AGEs. α-Crystallin in the lens binds to other proteins and prevents their denaturation and aggregation through its chaperone-like activity. Using a FRET-based assay, we examined the stability of the αA-crystallin–γD-crystallin complex for up to 12 days and observed that this complex is stable in PBS and upon incubation with human lens–epithelial cell lysate or lens homogenate. Addition of 2 mm ATP to the lysate or homogenate did not decrease the stability of the complex. We also generated complexes of human αA-crystallin or αB-crystallin with alcohol dehydrogenase or citrate synthase by applying thermal stress. Upon glycation under physiological conditions, the chaperone–client complexes underwent greater extents of cross-linking than did uncomplexed protein mixtures. LC-MS/MS analyses revealed that the levels of cross-linking AGEs were significantly higher in the glycated chaperone–client complexes than in glycated but uncomplexed protein mixtures. Mouse lenses subjected to thermal stress followed by glycation lost resilience more extensively than lenses subjected to thermal stress or glycation alone, and this loss was accompanied by higher protein cross-linking and higher cross-linking AGE levels. These results uncover a protein cross-linking mechanism in the lens and suggest that AGE-mediated cross-linking of α-crystallin–client complexes could contribute to lens aging and presbyopia. Full Article
cli Diabetes in China: Epidemiology and Genetic Risk Factors and Their Clinical Utility in Personalized Medication By diabetes.diabetesjournals.org Published On :: 2018-01-01 Cheng HuJan 1, 2018; 67:3-11Perspectives in Diabetes Full Article
cli Brexit and the UN Security Council: declining British influence? By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 09:14:28 +0000 6 November 2019 , Volume 95, Number 6 Jess Gifkins, Samuel Jarvis and Jason Ralph Read online The United Kingdom's decision to leave the European Union has ramifications beyond the UK and the EU. This article analyses the impact of the Brexit referendum on the UK's political capital in the United Nations Security Council; a dimension of Brexit that has received little attention thus far. Drawing on extensive elite interviews we show that the UK has considerable political capital in the Council, where it is seen as one of the most effective actors, but the reputational costs of Brexit are tarnishing this image. With case-studies on the UK's role in Somalia and Yemen we show how the UK has been able to further its interests with dual roles in the EU and Security Council, and the risks posed by tensions between trade and human rights after Brexit. We also analyse what it takes to be influential within the Security Council and argue that more attention should be paid to the practices of diplomacy. Influence is gained via penholding, strong diplomatic skill and a well-regarded UN permanent representative. The UK accrues political capital as a leader on the humanitarian and human rights side of the Council's agenda, but this reputation is at risk as it exits the EU. Full Article
cli Reimagining Trade Rules to Address Climate Change in a Post-Pandemic World By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 10:25:01 +0000 Webinar Research Event 5 May 2020 - 2:00pm to 3:00pm Event participants James Bacchus, Distinguished University Professor of Global Affairs and Director of the Center for Global Economic and Environmental Opportunity at the University of Central Florida; Member and Chair, WTO Appellate Body, 1995 - 2003Chair: Creon Butler, Director, Global Economy and Finance Programme, Chatham House This event is part of the Chatham House Global Trade Policy Forum and will take place virtually only.International trade has a crucial role to play in tackling climate change. The production and transport of goods is a major contributor to green-house gas emissions, as is the delivery of certain cross-border services. At the same time, it looks inevitable that the COVID-19 pandemic will lead to a radical re-think of global supply chains as companies and governments seek to build in greater resilience while at the same time preserving as far as possible the efficiency gains and lower costs that global supply chains generate when operating normally.Future international trade rules will have a crucial role to play in addressing both challenges; they represent both an opportunity and a risk. If designed well, they could play a very important role in re-enforcing moves towards a more sustainable use of resources, greater overall alignment of economies with the Paris Agreement, and greater economic resilience. But they could also, if poorly designed and implemented, or overly influenced by strategic political considerations, have significant unintended and negative implications. These include: reduced economic efficiency, increased poverty, unnecessary economic decoupling and reduced consensus on the broader mitigation and adaptation measures required to meet the challenge of climate change.Against this background, a number of key questions arise: In what areas, if any, do we need to modify or adapt key principles underlying the system of global trade rules in order to respond to the twin challenges of responding to climate change and building greater economic resilience? Which are the most promising/practical areas on which trade policy experts should focus now to re-launch/re-energize discussions on WTO reform, including, for example, dispute settlement? What national economic policies will be needed to complement the development of new/reformed trade disciplines in these areas? How might future political changes, such as a change in the US administration, affect the prospects for and political momentum behind such deliberations? What in any eventuality is the best way to build the required political momentum? This roundtable is convened by the Global Economy and Finance Programme and the US and the Americas Programme and it is part of the Chatham House Global Trade Policy Forum. The event will take place virtually only.We would like to take this opportunity to thank founding partner AIG and supporting partners Clifford Chance LLP, Diageo plc, and EY for their generous support of the Chatham House Global Trade Policy Forum.Please note this event is taking place between 2pm to 3pm BST. Department/project US and the Americas Programme, Global Trade Policy Forum Full Article
cli Cli·ché By kolembo.wordpress.com Published On :: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 19:35:37 +0000 We garden together, He and I, Uprooting rocks, chiseling Fuchsia, We, Argue a lot, and; Framing roses in gold, morning light or, Flaming red sunset, Helps cool raging fires. Birds join us when we are not too loud, Sipping iridescent water from clay pots, Serenading nectar onto rhamphothecae; We squash fat slugs accidentally, And bitterness. […] Full Article Poetry anger language love poetry Reconcilliation Relationships
cli Climate Change 2012 By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:09:19 +0000 Conference Security, resilience and diplomacy 15 October 2012 - 9:30am to 16 October 2012 - 5:00pm Chatham House, London Overview Speakers Press registration Sponsors Media partners Venue and accommodation Agenda The 16th Annual Chatham House conference on climate change will assess what national and international actions must be taken now to manage 21st century climate security challenges. Although disunity remains over how to manage the climate challenge, there is agreement that action is now needed to adapt to the impacts of climate change that can no longer be prevented and to build resilience against the impact of extreme climate events.The conference will examine the key economic, social and geo-political security threats caused by climate change and debate what national and international responses are required to manage these security challenges.Key issues that will be addressed include:What will be the impact of climate change on border shifts, migration, health, security of critical infrastructure and competition for natural resources?Is there a role for geoengineering in managing climate? If so, what would be the impact on international climate action?What has been achieved between Durban and Doha and what are the goals for the 2012 UN talks?How will essential climate change mitigation and adaptation be financed?Suggested Twitter hashtag: #CHClimate Rt Hon Edward DaveySecretary of State for Energy and Climate ChangeChristiana FigueresExecutive SecretaryConnie HedegaardEuropean Commissioner for Climate ActionDieter Helm CBEProfessor of Energy PolicyGraham van’t HoffChairman and Executive Vice President, CO2 and Alternative EnergiesThe Honourable Peter KentMinister of the EnvironmentDr David N BreschHead Sustainability & Political Risk ManagementViktor ElblingDirector General for Economic Affairs and Sustainable DevelopmentAntony FroggattSenior Research Fellow, Energy, Environment and Resource GovernanceRichard GledhillGlobal Leader, Climate Change and Carbon Market ServicesProfessor Michael GrubbSenior Research Associate, Faculty of EconomicsProfessor Debarati Guha-SapirDirectorProfessor Zhang HaibinSchool of International StudiesShahidul HaqueFormer Director, International Cooperation and PartnershipAmbassador Richard H JonesDeputy Executive DirectorBernice LeeResearch Director, Energy, Environment and Resources GovernanceNick MabeyChief ExecutiveOliver MortonBriefings EditorProfessor Virginia MurrayHead of Extreme EventsRichard MyungiVice President's Office, Division of Environment, TanzaniaCleo PaskalAssociate Research FellowDr Steve RaynerDirectorDr David SantilloChief ScientistDr Jamie SheaDeputy Assistant Secretary General, Emerging Security Challenges DivisionDan Smith OBESecretary GeneralJack StilgoeSenior Lecturer, Science and Technology StudiesThomas StockerProfessor of Climate and Environmental Physics, University of Bern, Switzerland and This conference will be held under the Chatham House Rule. Information for journalistsPress can request a press pass using the form below. If you are interested in becoming a sponsor for this event, please contact Simone Roberts. VenueChatham Houseconferences@chathamhouse.org Telephone: +44 (0)20 7957 5729Fax: +44 (0)20 7957 5710If you wish to book the venue for your event please phone +44 (0)20 7314 2764Conference UnitChatham House10 St James's SquareLondonSW1Y 4LEUK AccommodationAlthough 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 MayfairHalf Moon StreetMayfairLondon W1Y 7RATel: + 44 (0)20 7499 2964Fax: + 44 (0)20 7499 1817Standard Single £180 + VATThe Cavendish London81 Jermyn StreetLondonSW1U 6JFTel: + 44 (0)20 7930 2111Fax: + 44 (0)20 7839 2125Standard Single £200 + VATTo book The Cavendish onlineThe Stafford London by KempinskiSt James's PlaceLondon SW1A 1NJTel: 020 7518 1125 Fax: 020 7493 7121Standard Single £230 +VAT Day One, Monday 15 OctoberClimate Risk: The ScienceWhat 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 ChairBernice Lee OBEResearch Director, Energy, Environment and ResourcesChatham HouseProfessor Thomas StockerCo-Chair WGIIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Questions & discussion10.00 Keynote Speaker (on the record)Connie HedegaardEuropean Commissioner for Climate ActionEuropean CommissionQuestions & discussionSession OneSecurity and Climate ChangeWhat 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 AssessmentTo 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 PaskalAssociate FellowChatham House10.30 SpeakersCleo PaskalDan Smith OBESecretary GeneralInternational AlertProf Virginia MurrayHead of Extreme EventsHealth Protection Agency, UKQuestions and discussion11.50 - 12.20 RefreshmentsSession TwoInternational Climate Change PolicyWhat 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 OBEResearch Director, Energy, Environment and ResourcesChatham House12.20 Keynote Speaker (on the record)Christiana FigueresExecutive SecretaryUNFCCCQuestions & discussion12.50 Keynote Discussion (on the record)The Honourable Peter KentMinister of the EnvironmentCanada Graham van’t HoffChairman Shell UKExecutive Vice President, CO2 and Alternative EnergiesDieter Helm CBEProfessor of Energy PolicyUniversity of Oxford13.30 Lunch14.30 Keynote Speaker (on the record)Rt Hon Edward DaveySecretary of StateDepartment of Energy and Climate Change, UKQuestions & discussionSession ThreeTechnology, Public Attitudes, Energy and Climate ChangeEnergy 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 GledhillPartner, Global Leader Climate ChangePricewaterhouseCoopers15.00 SpeakersAmbassador Richard H. JonesDeputy Executive DirectorInternational Energy AgencyAntony FroggattSenior Research Fellow, Energy, Environment and Resource GovernanceChatham HouseProfessor Michael GrubbSenior Research Associate, Faculty of EconomicsUniversity of CambridgeQuestions and discussion15.50-16.20 RefreshmentsSession FourA Radical SolutionCould 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 DiscussionModeratorOliver MortonBriefings EditorThe Economist16.20 PanelistsDr Jack StilgoeSenior Lecturer, Department of Science and Technology StudiesUniversity College LondonDr Steve RaynerDirectorInstitute for Science, Innovation and SocietyDr David SantilloChief ScientistGreenpeace17.20 End of day one and drinks reception hosted by Chatham House DAY TWOTuesday 16 OctoberSession FiveNational Action on Climate and Security ImplicationsThis 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 ChairCleo PaskalAssociate FellowChatham House SpeakersProf Zhang HaibinSchool of International StudiesPeking UniversityProf Debarati Guha-SapirDirectorWHO Collaborating Centre for Research on Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) Dr David N BreschHead of SustainabilitySwiss Reinsurance Company LtdQuestions and discussion10.45-11.15 Refreshments Session SixAdapting to a Changing WorldStrategic responses to climate change at international levelThis 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 ChairNick MabeyChief ExecutiveE3GPanel DiscussionBernice LeeResearch Director, Energy, Environment and Resources GovernanceChatham HouseShahidul HaqueFormer Director, International Cooperation and PartnershipInternational Organization for Migration (IOM)Viktor ElblingDirector General for Economic Affairs and Sustainable DevelopmentGerman Federal Foreign OfficeRichard MyungiVice President's Office, Division of Environment, Tanzaniaand first Chairman and LDC Board Member, Global Climate Change Adaptation FundDr. Jamie SheaDeputy Assistant Secretary General, Emerging Security Challenges DivisionNATO Questions and discussion13.00 Lunch and end of conference© The Royal Institute of International Affairs, 2012 Full Article
cli The UK's Vision for Tackling Climate Change By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:32:40 +0000 1 July 2012 Chatham House This is a transcript of a speech made by Ed Davey MP, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, on 11 July 2012 at Chatham House.In his first keynote speech on the subject, the Secretary of State outlined his vision for ambitious action on climate change.Event details. Related documents Transcript - Ed Davey MPpdf | 110.21 KB Department/project Energy, Environment and Resources Programme Full Article
cli Delivering Concrete Climate Change Action By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Tue, 14 May 2013 11:06:32 +0000 Conference Towards 2015 21 October 2013 - 9:30am to 22 October 2013 - 3:30pm Chatham House, London Overview Speakers Press registration Sponsors Media partners Venue and accommodation Agenda Audience profile Over the past five years, the political conditions for a global agreement on climate change have shifted. There is today growing consensus that responding to a changing climate will require multi-level collaboration and new alliances. In the run-up to the deadline for a new international climate change agreement in 2015, the 17th Annual Chatham House Conference on Climate Change will focus on workable solutions that will help accelerate global decarbonization. This conference will ask:What will a global deal in 2015 look like? What are the key components of a shared vision? What elements do developing and developed countries need in order to reach agreement?How can the emerging international climate change regime – comprising voluntary partnerships, formal negotiations and business coalitions – deliver the necessary reductions in greenhouse gas emissions?To what extent will new energy realities affect the politics of climate change?What practical lessons can be learned from existing carbon mitigation and adaptation policies?How can the international community harness progressive leadership?Registration Michael AndersonChief Executive OfficerThe Rt Hon Gregory Barker MPMinister of State for Energy and Climate ChangeFrances BeineckePresidentTim BentonUK Champion for Global Food Security and Professor of Population EcologySam BickerstethChief ExecutiveTony De BrumMinister-in-Assistance to the PresidentGiles DicksonVP Environmental Policies and Global AdvocacyReid DetchonVice President, Energy and ClimateAlfred EvansChief Executive OfficerChristiana FigueresExecutive SecretaryMarcin KorolecMinister of Environment, PolandKate HamptonExecutive Director, Climate ChangeCameron HepburnProfessor of environmental economics, Smith School and INET at Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, andDavid HoneClimate Change AdvisorPa Ousman JarjuSpecial Envoy for Climate ChangeSir David KingForeign Secretary’s Special Representative for Climate ChangeMartin KhorDirectorJohan KuylenstiernaDeputy-Director, Stockholm Environment InstituteJames LeatonProject DirectorBernice LeeResearch Director, Energy, Environment and ResourcesNick MabeyChief Executive OfficerAmina MohammedSpecial Adviser on Post-2015 Development PlanningJennifer MorganDirector of the Climate and Energy ProgramAdmiral Neil MorisettiForeign Secretary’s Special Representative for Climate ChangeMutsuyoshi NishimuraVisiting Research Fellow, Japan Institute of International affairsDr Atiur RahmanGovernorJohn SchellnhuberFounding DirectorTodd SternSpecial Envoy for Climate ChangeKelly RiggExecutive DirectorLaurence TubianaDirectorFraser ThompsonSenior FellowDominic WaughraySenior Director and Head of Environmental InitiativesFarhana YaminAssociate 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. VenueChatham 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 UKAccommodationAlthough 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 MayfairHalf Moon Street Mayfair London W1Y 7RA Tel: + 44 (0)20 7499 2964 Fax: + 44 (0)20 7499 1817 Standard Single £190 + VATThe Cavendish London81 Jermyn Street London SW1U 6JF Tel: + 44 (0)20 7930 2111 Fax: + 44 (0)20 7839 2125 Standard Single £205 + VATTo book The Cavendish onlineThe Stafford London by KempinskiSt James's PlaceLondonSW1A 1NJTel: 020 7518 1125Fax: 020 7493 7121Standard Single £230 +VAT Monday 21 October 2013Session OneBridging the Gap Between Science and Policy09:00 - 10:10What 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 AddressBernice Lee, Research Director, Energy, Environment and Resources, Chatham HouseChairMichael Anderson, Chief Executive Officer, Children’s Investment Fund Foundation Keynote AddressProfessor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Founding Director, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)SpeakersProfessor Tim Benton, UK Champion for Global Food Security and Professor of Population Ecology, Leeds UniversitySir David King, Foreign Secretary’s Special Representative for Climate ChangeQuestions and Discussion10:10 - 10:40 RefreshmentsSession TwoGlobal Deal in 2015: Challenges and Prospects10:40 - 12:40What 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?ChairBernice Lee, Research Director, Energy, Environment and Resources, Chatham House Keynote AddressesChristiana 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 DiscussionSpeakersNick Mabey, Chief Executive Officer, E3GFarhana Yamin, Associate Fellow, Chatham House Laurence Tubiana, Director, The Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI)Questions and Discussion1240 - 14:00 LunchChairBernice Lee, Research Director, Energy, Environment and Resources, Chatham HouseKeynote AddressGregory Barker, Minister of State for Energy and Climate Change, United Kingdom (on the record)Questions and DiscussionSession ThreeClimate-Resilient Development: Views from Developing Countries14:30 - 16:10What 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?ChairSam Bickersteth, Chief Executive, The Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN)Keynote AddressesDr Atiur Rahman, Governor, Bangladesh BankSenator Tony deBrum, Minister-in-Assistance to the President, Republic of Marshall IslandsQuestions and DiscussionSpeakersMartin Khor, Director, South Centre Pa Ousman Jarju, Special Envoy for Climate Change, Republic of the GambiaQuestions and Discussion16:10 - 16:30 RefreshmentsSession Four Preparing for 2015: The Role of Major Economies16:30 - 17:30Do 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 HouseSpeakersDavid Hone, Climate Change Adviser, ShellJennifer Morgan, Director of the Climate and Energy Program, World Resources Institute Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti, Foreign Secretary’s Special Representative for Climate Change, United KingdonMutsuyoshi Nishimura, Visiting Research Fellow, Japan Institute of International affairs and Former Special Adviser to the Cabinet in charge of Climate Change, Japan Questions and Discussion17:30 End of day one and drinks reception hosted by Chatham HouseDAY TWOTuesday 22 October 09:30 - 15:10Session FiveThe Changing Global Energy Landscape: Implications for Decarbonization09:30 - 10:45What 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?ChairDavid Hone, Climate Change Adviser, ShellModerated Panel Discussion Reid Detchon, Vice President for Energy and Climate, United Nations FoundationGiles Dickson, Vice President, Environmental Policies & Global Advocacy, Alstom Antony Froggatt, Senior Research Fellow, Chatham HouseQuestions and Discussion10:45 - 11:15 RefreshmentsSession Six Climate Policy and Finance: The Emerging Toolkit11:15 - 12:30What 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?ChairCameron 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 LSESpeakersDr 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 LSEJames Leaton, Project Director, Carbon Tracker Fraser Thompson, Senior Fellow, McKinsey Global InstituteQuestions and Discussion12:30 -13:30 Lunch13.:30 -14:00ChairBernice Lee, Research Director, Energy, Environment and Resources, Chatham HouseKeynote AddressTodd Stern, Special Envoy for Climate Change, United States Department of StateQuestions and DiscussionSession SevenBuilding the Progressive Conditions for 201514:00 - 15:10Can 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? ChairDominic Waughray, Senior Director, Head of Environmental Initiatives, World Economic ForumModerated Panel DiscussionFrances Beinecke, President, Natural Resources Defense Council Alfred Evans, Chief Executive Officer, Climate Change CapitalKate Hampton, Executive Director, Climate Change, Children's Investment Fund Foundation Amina Mohammed, Special Adviser on Post-2015 Development Planning, United NationsQuestions and Discussion15:10 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:AccentureAEA Energy & EnvironmentAgulhasArcelorMittalAssociation of Asia Pacific Airlines (AAPA)Atkins LtdBASF plcBayerngas Norge ASBeetle CapitalBG Group plcBHP BillitonBIRA-IASBBooz & CoBP plcBritish CouncilBT Group plcCairn Energy plcCambridge Centre for Energy StudiesCambridge Programme for Sustainable LeadershipCarbon Capture and Storage AssociationCarbon LeapfrogCarbon TrustCaritas InternationalisCatholic Fund for Overseas Development (CAFOD)CH2M HillChamber of ShippingChevron LtdChubu Electric Power Co IncClientEarthClifford Chance LLPClimate & Development Knowledge Network (CDKN)Climate Action Network (CAN)Climate and Health CouncilClimate SecureCoalition for an International Court for the Environment (ICE Coalition)Compassion in World Farming (CIWF)Conocophillips (UK) LtdControl RisksCo-operative GroupCranfield UniversityDeloitte Consulting LLPDepartment for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS)Department for International Development (DFID)Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC)Ecofys UK LtdEcologic InstituteEDF EnergyEnergy Charter SecretariatEnergy Technologies InstituteEni S.p.AEnvironment AgencyEnvironmental Law Foundation (ELF)Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Environmental Resources Management (ERM)ENWORKSErnst & YoungEthical Investment Research Services Ltd (EIRIS)European Bank For Reconstruction & DevelopmentEuropean Commission (Directorate General for Enterprise and Industry)European ParliamentExxonMobil International LtdFauna & Flora InternationalFIA Foundation for the Automobile and SocietyFinnish Forest AssociationForeign and Commonwealth Office (FCO)Forestry CommissionFriends of the EarthGenesis Investment Management LLPGLG Partners LPGlobal CCS InstituteGlobal Humanitarian ForumGlobal Sustainability InstituteGlobal WitnessGlobeleq LtdGrantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, LSEGreater Manchester Chamber of CommerceGreenpeace InternationalHerbert Smith Freehills LLPHM TreasuryImperial College LondonINPEX CorporationInstitute for Public Policy Research (IPPR)Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC)International Association of Oil & Gas ProducersInternational Council on Mining and MetalsInternational Finance Corporation (IFC)International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)International Organization for Standardization (ISO)Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO)Joseph Rowntree FoundationJPMorganKing's College LondonKPMGKuwait Petroleum CorporationLondon AssemblyLondon Metropolitan UniversityLondon School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)Maersk GroupMassey UniversityMcKinsey & CompanyMETREXMinistere des Affaires Etrangeres, FranceMinistry of Defence (Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre)Ministry of Foreign Affairs, NetherlandsMinistry of Foreign Affairs, FinlandMinistry of Foreign Affairs, PolandMinistry of Infrastructure and the EnvironmentMitsubishi CorporationNational Farmers' UnionNational Round Table on the Environment and the EconomyNetherlands Development Finance Company (FMO)NEXUS SingaporeOffice of National AssessmentsOgilvyOpen Society FoundationOverseas Development Institute (ODI)Oxford UniversityPlan UKPricewaterhouseCoopers LLPPrivy Council OfficeProgressioQuaker Peace and Social WitnessQuébec Government OfficeRenewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP)Renewable Energy Systems Ltd (RES)Rolls-Royce International LtdRWE Power AGSave the Children UKSCA, Svenska Cellulosa AktiebolagetSchool of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS)Standard Chartered Bank plcStatoil (UK) LtdSustainAbility LtdSwedish Defence Research Agency (FOI)Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation SDCTask ConsultTexas A&M UniversityThe 40 FoundationThe Climate GroupThe Gold Standard FoundationThe Norwegian Institute for Nature ResearchThe Open UniversityThe Prince of Wales Corporate Leader GroupThe Royal SocietyThe Saudi Fund For DevelopmentTokyo Electric Power CompanyTotal Holdings UK LtdUK Chamber of ShippingUK Collaborative on Development Sciences (UKCDS)United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)University College London (UCL)University of CambridgeUniversity of East Anglia (School of Environmental Sciences)University of EdinburghUniversity of Oxford (Department of Politics and International Relations)US Department of StateUSAIDWarwick Business SchoolWaterAidWorld Coal AssociationWorld Coal InstituteWorld Economic ForumWorld Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA)World Vision UKWWF-UKXynteo LtdYorkshire Forward Full Article
cli Climate Change: Raising Ambition, Delivering Results By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 10:08:33 +0000 Conference 3 November 2014 - 9:30am to 4 November 2014 - 1:15pm Chatham House, London Overview Agenda Speakers Pricing Media partners Sponsors Audience profile Venue and accommodation Press registration Climate change is climbing the political agenda. Extreme weather has raised questions in public discourse about the role of anthropogenic warming and concerns about its future impacts; slowdowns in emerging economies and sluggish recoveries in the developed world mean debates about the impact of climate policies on energy bills and competitiveness have assumed particular significance. Against this background, governments are gearing up for a crucial series of agreements in 2015 with climate change at their core. The international community must agree new global sustainable development goals, a new framework on disaster risk reduction and, at the 21st UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP 21) in Paris, a new global deal on climate change. The 18th Annual Chatham House Conference on Climate Change will take stock of developments in 2014, including the latest science, the findings of high-level commissions, initiatives from the business community and the UN Secretary-General’s High Level Summit at the end of September. Looking forward to COP 20 in Lima and beyond, this conference will examine opportunities to raise ambition and convert this into results.In particular, it will:Review the latest science on climate risk and the implications for business, society and politics Examine the benefits of a low carbon economy, and assess the costs of climate action and where they fall Discuss concrete measures to decarbonize key sectors and the barriers to action Identify the critical path to the UNFCCC’s Conference of the Parties (COP 21) in 2015, and look at whether, and how, support for ambitious action can be built among publics, business and politiciansThe 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 ONEMonday 3 NovemberSession One Taking Stock and Mapping the Road Ahead09:30-11:15What 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?ChairRob Bailey, Acting Research Director, Energy, Environment and Resources, Chatham HouseKeynote AddressManuel 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 DiscussionChairJennifer Morgan, Director, Climate and Energy Programme, World Resources Institute (WRI) SpeakersSelwin Hart, Director, Secretary-General's Climate Change Support Team, United NationsDr 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, FranceQuestions and Discussion11:15-11:45 RefreshmentsSession TwoLow Carbon Economy: Costs and Benefits11:45-13:00 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 RemarksMarianne Fay, Chief Economist, Climate Change Group, The World BankKeynote Panel DiscussionJeremy 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 ManagementJeremy Bentham, Vice President, Global Business Environment, ShellQuestions and Discussion13:00-14:00 LunchSession 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.ChairShane Tomlinson, Senior Research Fellow, Energy, Environment and Resources, Chatham House Opening DiscussionManfred Konukiewitz, Co-Chair, the Green Climate Fund Matthew Kotchen, Professor of Economics, Yale University Farhana Yamin, Associate Fellow, Chatham HousePower and Transport14:45-15:45What 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?ChairShane Tomlinson, Senior Research Fellow, Energy, Environment and Resources, Chatham House SpeakersAbyd Karmali, Managing Director, Climate Finance, Bank of America Merrill LynchDries Acke, Policy Manager, European Climate Foundation (Belgium) Olivier Paturet, General Manager, Zero Emissions Strategy, Nissan EuropeStefan Raubenheimer, Co-Founder and Director, South South North; Co-Director, MAPS Programme Questions and Discussion15:45-16:15 RefreshmentsBuildings and Cities16:15-17:15What 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? ChairFarhana Yamin, Associate Fellow, Energy, Environment and Resources, Chatham HouseSpeakersEd Mazria, Founder and CEO, Architecture 2030Tony Mallows, Director, Masdar City Questions and Discussion17:15 Close of day and drinks receptionDAY TWOTuesday 4 NovemberSession Four Climate Impacts9:30-11:15 ChairSir David King, Foreign Secretary's Special Representative for Climate Change, United KingdomKeynote AddressesHE 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?ChairSir David King, Foreign Secretary's Special Representative for Climate Change, United KingdomSpeakersChris 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 ActuariesQuestions and Discussion11:15 - 11.45 RefreshmentsSession FiveThe Conditions for Action 11:45 - 13:00What 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? ChairSimon Maxwell, Executive Chair, Climate Development Knowledge NetworkKeynote AddressBill McKibben, President and Co-Founder, 350.org (on the record)Panel DiscussionAntonio Hill, Executive Director, Global Campaign for Climate ActionMichael 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 KingdomQuestions and DiscussionClosing remarksRob Bailey, Acting Research Director, Energy, Environment and Resources, Chatham House 13:10 End of conference and lunch © The Royal Institute of International Affairs 2014 Keynote Speakers Jeremy Bentham Vice President, Global Business Environment, Shell Jos Delbeke Director General for Climate Action, European Commission Bill McKibben President and Co-Founder, 350.org Jeremy Oppenheim Programme Director, New Climate Economy, Global Commission on the Economy and Climate Manuel Pulgar-Vidal Minister of State for Environment, Peru; President COP20 Amber Rudd MP* Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, United Kingdom Professor Hans Joachim Schnellnhuber Founding Director, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research Belete Tafere Minister of Environment Protection and Forestry, Ethiopia Dr Qi Ye Director, Brookings-Tsinghua Center for Public Policy and Professor of Environmental Policy; Management at Tsinghua University’s School of Public Policy and Management Speakers Dries Acke Policy Manager, European Climate Foundation (Belgium) Myles Allen Coordinating Lead Author, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C; Professor of Geosystem Science, University of Oxford Oliver Bettis Chair, Institute and Faculty of Actuaries' Resource and Environment Board Marianne Fay Chief Economist, Climate Change Group, The World Bank Chris Field Founding Director, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Science Selwin Hart Director, Secretary-General's Climate Change Support Team, United Nations Antonio Hill Executive Director, Global Campaign for Climate Action Michael Hogan Senior Adviser, Regulatory Assistance Project Professor Michael Jacobs Senior Adviser on International Climate Policy, The Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations Abyd Karmali Managing Director, Climate Finance, Bank of America Merrill Lynch Sir David King Foreign Secretary’s Special Representative for Climate Change Manfred Konukiewitz Co-Chair, The Green Climate Fund Matthew Kotchen Professor of Economics, Yale University Nick Mabey Co-Founding Director and Chief Executive, E3G Antony Mallows Director, Masdar City Sergio Margulis National Secretary of Sustainable Development, Secretariat of Strategic Affairs of the Presidency, Brazil Simon Maxwell Executive Chairman, Climate and Development Knowledge Network Edward Mazria Founder and CEO, Architecture 2030 Jennifer Morgan Executive Director, Greenpeace International Olivier Paturet General Manager, Zero Emissions Strategy, Nissan Europe Stefan Raubenheimer Co-Founder and Director, South South North; Co-Director, MAPS Programme Jose-Manuel Sanoval Coordinator, Colombian Low Carbon Development Strategy (CLCDS) and Mitigation Action Plans and Scenarios (MAPS) Leena Srivastava Hony. Executive Director (Operations), The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) Halldór Thorgeirsson Director for Strategy, UN Framework for the Convention on Climate Change Paul Watkinson Head of Climate Negotiation Team, Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy, France Farhana Yamin Associate Fellow, Energy, Environment and Resources Programme [node:event_chair] PricingFor any questions about rates, please call +44 (0)20 7314 2782. FULL RATEEXCL. VATINCL. VATMajor corporate member ratesAll organizations£595£714 Corporate member ratesCommercial organizations£1,295£1,554Government departments£775£930NGOs and academics£495£594Standard ratesCommercial organizations£1,445£1,734 Government departments£845£1,014NGOs 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:AccentureAEA Energy & EnvironmentAgulhasArcelorMittalAssociation of Asia Pacific Airlines (AAPA)Atkins LtdBank of America Merrill LynchBASF plcBayerngas Norge ASBeetle CapitalBG Group plcBHP BillitonBIRA-IASBBirdLifeBooz & CoBP plcBritish CouncilBT Group plcCAFODCairn Energy plcCambridge Centre for Energy StudiesCambridge Programme for Sustainable LeadershipCarbon Capture and Storage AssociationCarbon LeapfrogCarbon TrustCaritas InternationalisCatholic Fund for Overseas Development (CAFOD)CH2M HillChevron LtdChubu Electric Power Co IncCity of LondonClientEarthClifford Chance LLPClimate & Development Knowledge Network (CDKN)Climate Action Network (CAN)Climate and Health CouncilClimate SecureCoalition for an International Court for the Environment (ICE Coalition)Compassion in World Farming (CIWF)Conocophillips (UK) LtdControl RisksCo-operative GroupCranfield UniversityDeloitte Consulting LLPDepartment for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS)Department for International Development (DFID)Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC)Ecofys UK LtdEcologic InstituteEDF EnergyEnergy Charter SecretariatEnergy Technologies InstituteEni S.p.AEnvironment AgencyEnvironmental Law Foundation (ELF)Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Environmental Resources Management (ERM)ENWORKSErnst & YoungEthical Investment Research Services Ltd (EIRIS)European Bank For Reconstruction & DevelopmentEuropean Commission (Directorate General for Enterprise and Industry)European ParliamentExxonMobil International LtdFauna & Flora InternationalFIA Foundation for the Automobile and SocietyFinnish Forest AssociationForeign and Commonwealth Office (FCO)Forestry CommissionFriends of the EarthGenesis Investment Management LLPGLG Partners LPGlobal CCS InstituteGlobal Humanitarian ForumGlobal Sustainability InstituteGlobal WitnessGlobeleq LtdGrantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, LSEGreater Manchester Chamber of CommerceGreenpeace InternationalHerbert Smith Freehills LLPHM TreasuryImperial College LondonINPEX CorporationInstitute for Public Policy Research (IPPR)Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC)International Association of Oil & Gas ProducersInternational Council on Mining and MetalsInternational Finance Corporation (IFC)International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)International Organization for Standardization (ISO)Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO)Joseph Rowntree FoundationJPMorganKing's College LondonKPMGKuwait Petroleum CorporationLondon AssemblyLondon Metropolitan UniversityLondon School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)Maersk GroupMassey UniversityMcKinsey & CompanyMet OfficeMETREXMinistere des Affaires Etrangeres, FranceMinistry of Defence (Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre)Ministry of Foreign Affairs, NetherlandsMinistry of Foreign Affairs, FinlandMinistry of Foreign Affairs, PolandMinistry of Infrastructure and the EnvironmentMitsubishi CorporationNational Farmers' UnionNational Round Table on the Environment and the EconomyNetherlands Development Finance Company (FMO)NEXUS SingaporeNordic CouncilOffice of National AssessmentsOgilvyOpen Society FoundationOverseas Development Institute (ODI)Oxford UniversityPlan UKPricewaterhouseCoopers LLPPrivy Council OfficeProgressioQuaker Peace and Social WitnessQuébec Government OfficeRenewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP)Renewable Energy Systems Ltd (RES)Rolls-Royce International LtdRWE Power AGSave the Children UKSCA, Svenska Cellulosa AktiebolagetSchool of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS)ShellStandard Chartered Bank plcStatoil (UK) LtdSustainAbility LtdSwedish Defence Research Agency (FOI)Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation SDCTask ConsultTexas A&M UniversityThe 40 FoundationThe Climate GroupThe Gold Standard FoundationThe Norwegian Institute for Nature ResearchThe Open UniversityThe Prince of Wales Corporate Leader GroupThe Royal SocietyThe Saudi Fund For DevelopmentTokyo Electric Power CompanyTotal Holdings UK LtdUK Chamber of ShippingUK Collaborative on Development Sciences (UKCDS)United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)University College London (UCL)University of CambridgeUniversity of East Anglia (School of Environmental Sciences)University of EdinburghUniversity of Oxford (Department of Politics and International Relations)US Department of StateUSAIDWarwick Business SchoolWaterAidWorld Coal AssociationWorld Coal InstituteWorld Economic ForumWorld Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA)World Vision UKWWF-UKXynteo LtdYorkshire Forward VenueChatham House10 St James's SquareLondonSW1Y 4LEUKconferences@chathamhouse.orgTelephone: +44 (0)20 7957 5729Fax: +44 (0)20 7957 5710If you wish to book the venue for your event please phone +44 (0)20 7314 2764DirectionsThe 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.MapAccommodationAlthough 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 MayfairHalf Moon StreetMayfairLondon W1J 7BHTel: + 44 (0)20 7499 2964Fax: + 44 (0)20 7499 1817Standard Single from £199 + VATThe Cavendish London81 Jermyn StreetLondonSW1Y 6JFTel: + 44 (0)20 7930 2111Fax: + 44 (0)20 7839 2125Standard Single £205 + VATTo book The Cavendish onlineThe Stafford London by KempinskiSt James's PlaceLondonSW1A 1NJTel: 020 7518 1125Fax: 020 7493 7121Standard 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 Email Full Article
cli A Global Response to HFCs through Fair and Effective Ozone and Climate Policies By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 13:27:40 +0000 11 July 2014 Rising HFC use poses a significant threat to intergovernmental efforts to combat climate change. At present, there is a glaring regulatory gap in this area. Although challenging, there is no reason why the international community cannot come together to address this new problem of coordination and ensure that legal regimes support each other. Full Report Summary Duncan Brack Associate Fellow, Energy, Environment and Resources Programme @DuncanBrack Google Scholar Stephen O. Andersen Director of Research, the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development (IGSD) Joanna Depledge Affiliated Lecturer, Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge 20140710GlacierHFCClimate.jpg In this aerial image, icebergs are seen as a glacier is flown into the sea on July 30, 2012 near Qaanaaq, Greenland. Photo by The Asahi Shimbun via Getty Images. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are replacements for many of the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) currently being phased out under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Unlike those ozone-depleting substances (ODS), HFCs do not destroy the ozone layer, but they are very powerful greenhouse gases (GHGs) – up to thousands of times more damaging to the climate than carbon dioxide – and their use is currently growing faster than any other category of GHGs. Projections show HFC use increasing as much as 30-fold by 2050, adding up to 0.1°C of global average temperature rise by mid-century, and increasing up to five-fold, to 0.5°C, by 2100. This clearly makes it more difficult to limit the rise in global temperature to the internationally agreed ceiling of 2°C – and thereby avoid dangerous climate change – by the end of the 21st century.As GHGs, HFCs fall under the purview of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and are explicitly listed under the UNFCCC’s 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which controls emissions of HFCs and other GHGs. They are not, however, subject to any specific measures under the climate agreements, and this is unlikely to change in the near future. Accordingly, the last five years have seen proposals to amend the Montreal Protocol to phase down the production and consumption of HFCs.Such a step would have a number of advantages. Since substitutes already exist for almost all uses of HFCs, the consumption and production phase-out model of the Montreal Protocol is better suited to controlling HFCs than the emissions limits controls of the climate regime; and the individuals and organizations involved in implementing the Montreal Protocol have accumulated substantial experience and expertise in dealing with precisely those industrial sectors in which HFCs are used, including refrigeration and air-conditioning, foams, solvents and aerosols.This paper, which draws on the discussions at a workshop held at Chatham House in April 2014, outlines the main issues around the question of how best to craft a fair and effective global response to the growth in HFC use. A number of key issues are central to the debate: the principle of equity between developed and developing countries; the availability of alternatives to HFCs; the need for financial support for developing countries; the legal relationship between the climate and ozone regimes; and, underlying all these, the need for political will to resolve these challenges. Department/project Energy, Environment and Resources Programme Full Article
cli EU Lays Down Marker for Global Climate Action By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 13:21:32 +0000 24 October 2014 Antony Froggatt Senior Research Fellow, Energy, Environment and Resources Programme LinkedIn Shane Tomlinson Former Senior Research Fellow, Energy, Environment and Resources The EU’s climate and energy package represents an important step ahead of a potential global deal next year in Paris. But a disappointing approach to energy efficiency and uncertainty over governance threatens to undermine delivery. 20141024MerkelSchulzClimate.jpg German Chancellor Angela Merkel talks with European parliament president Martin Schulz during an EU climate summit on 23 October 2014. Photo by Getty Images. The European Union has reached agreement on its 2030 climate and energy package in preparation for the next major international climate summit in Paris in December 2015. In the agreement member states have signed up to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 40% by 2030 – compared to 1990 levels. Currently emissions are approximately 20% below 1990 levels and so the 2030 target represents a continuation of current decarbonization trends, but it is below the rate of reductions required to meet the longer term objective of cutting emission by 80-95% by 2050.However, the overall 40% reduction will still drive structural changes in Europe’s economy and the energy sector. This could and should be seen as an opportunity for the EU to become a world leader in the innovation of both the new technologies and systems, such as electricity storage, dynamic demand responses and the deployment of electric vehicles, all of which are experiencing a rapid increase in the size of their global markets.But there are some concerns. The climate and energy package has put forward a collective target to double the current level of renewables so that it will provide at least 27% of energy by 2030. However, the target is binding on the EU as a whole but not on individual member states, which creates uncertainty and is further complicated by a lack of clarity on the enforcement mechanism, which remains vague. To avoid loss of investor and industrial confidence a transparent process needs to be rapidly developed that ensures compliance. The EU has also failed to give energy efficiency the priority it deserves, downgrading it to an indicative target (i.e. one that is aspirational only) of a 27% reduction in energy use from business as usual. However, this is equivalent to, at most, a 19% reduction from Europe's pre-recession trajectory. The weaker energy efficiency and renewable energy elements of the package reflects the resistance of a relatively small number of countries to further EU-wide legal commitments, either because they prefer market inducement or due to their reluctance to reform their energy sectors. The package also makes clear that the a reformed Emissions Trading Scheme will be the main instrument to achieve the GHG reduction target and proposes to accelerate the reduction of the cap on maximum permitted emissions. However, this would only kick in after 2021, meaning the scheme will remain relatively ineffective for at least another five years. The crisis in Ukraine and the potential implications for security of supply once again highlights the importance of both domestic energy production and common European approaches to energy suppliers. Every 1% of energy saved across the EU reduces gas imports by 2.6%, and a stronger target would do more to reduce dependence on Russian gas imports. The EU’s failure to adopt a more far reaching and binding target on energy efficiency is a missed opportunity given that it is one of the only approaches that delivers on the three pillars on energy policy, namely environmental protection, competitiveness and security of supply, simultaneously.It is important to note the progress that the EU has made in both meeting its climate targets over the last decade and the impact that this has had on its other energy policy objectives. Currently, the EU’s 2020 target for reducing GHG emissions by 20% has or is very close to being met, in part due to the economic downturn, but also due to efficiency, renewable energy and changing industrial patterns and technologies. Furthermore, the use of renewable energy is now estimated to save around €30 billion per year in imported energy, improving balance of payments and improving security of supply. Likewise improvements in energy efficiency have been shown since the turn of the century to have contributed to a 1% annual reduction in energy consumption in the EU.But the EU is not alone in preparing national carbon reduction targets for the UNFCCC conference in Paris 2015. Both China and the US, the world’s first and second largest emitters, are preparing their own emission reduction plans. China announced in September that it would put forward a new target for the peaking of its carbon dioxide emissions as early as possible. It is suggested that this might be as early as in 2025, with the potential for peak coal use coming even earlier in 2020. The US has proposed to set limits on the emissions from new coal-fired power stations and a 30% reduction in US power sector emissions by 2030 (relative to their 2005 baseline), and President Obama is expected to go further with new climate measures next year.In the year ahead all countries that are party to the UNFCCC are expected to put on the table their national carbon abatement plans for 2030. Some will be conditional upon further international assistance and commitments. The package agreed by Europe has scope to respond to increased efforts by other countries. This could include increasing the EU’s own domestic target (currently framed as ‘at least 40%’) or through international offsets and climate finance. How the EU responds to other countries efforts will be a test of its global leadership on climate issues.To comment on this article, please contact Chatham House Feedback Full Article
cli Why wealthy countries must not drop nuclear energy: coal power, climate change and the fate of the global poor By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 11:37:45 +0000 12 March 2015 , Volume 91, Number 2 Reinhard Wolf Full Article
cli Africa's Responses to Climate Change: Policies to Manage Threat and Create Opportunity By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 10:30:01 +0000 Research Event 23 September 2015 - 12:00pm to 1:30pm Chatham House, London Meeting Summarypdf | 112.65 KB Event participants Dr Fatima Denton, Director, Special Initiatives Division, UN Economic Commission for AfricaDr Chukwumerije Okereke, Associate Professor, University of ReadingDouglas Brew, Director External Affairs, Communications and Sustainable Living for Africa, UnileverChair: Bob Dewar, Associate Fellow, Africa Programme, Chatham House African countries will be amongst the worst affected by climate change. High levels of poverty and underdevelopment combined with insufficient infrastructure exacerbate the already severe impact of global warming on resources, development and human security. In order to adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change, Africa’s leaders need to implement more robust environmental policies, increase local human capacity and encourage renewable energy entrepreneurship. Within international fora, they must better coordinate their position as some of the smallest contributors to global warming.Ahead of the upcoming UN conference on climate change in Paris, this discussion will examine the prospects for African countries to present a stronger collective voice within the international efforts against climate change, as well as the role that the international community and public and private partners can play in supporting local capacity and lower carbon economic growth. Department/project Africa Programme, Energy, Environment and Resources Programme Full Article
cli Implications of climate change for the UN Security Council: mapping the range of potential policy responses By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Fri, 06 Nov 2015 14:06:18 +0000 6 November 2015 , Volume 91, Number 6 Shirley V. Scott Full Article
cli A Good Deal? Assessing the Paris Climate Agreement By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 10:00:02 +0000 Invitation Only Research Event 16 December 2015 - 5:00pm to 6:30pm Chatham House, London Event participants Shane Tomlinson, Senior Research Fellow, Energy, Environment and Resources Department, Chatham House Following the conclusion of the Paris climate negotiations, this expert roundtable will examine the critical elements of the final agreement and what this means for the future of energy and climate policy in key countries.The discussion will examine what the agreement means for keeping global average temperatures below two degrees Celsius and assess whether ambition will be ratcheted over time. It will also look at the primary implications of the outcome for key regions and countries such as the EU, United States, China and India. Finally, the session will also consider the next steps in terms of implementing the agreement. Attendance at this event is by invitation only. Department/project Energy, Environment and Resources Programme Owen Grafham Manager, Energy, Environment and Resources Programme +44 (0)20 7957 5708 Email Full Article
cli Europe’s Energy Union: Foreign Policy Implications for Energy Security, Climate and Competitiveness By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:09:24 +0000 31 March 2016 By addressing structural divisions between member states, the Energy Union could have a beneficial effect on the EU’s capacity to conduct a unified and effective foreign policy, write Thomas Raines and Shane Tomlinson. Download PDF Thomas Raines Director, Europe Programme @TomHRaines Google Scholar 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. SummaryPlans for an EU-wide Energy Union are taking shape, following the European Commission’s adoption in February 2015 of a ‘Framework Strategy for a Resilient Energy Union with a Forward-Looking Climate Change Policy’. The strategy underlines the EU’s ambition to attain ‘secure, sustainable, competitive, affordable energy for every European’.The initiative seeks to transform energy markets and energy/climate policy across the EU. Its goals include cross-border coordination and integration in energy security, supply, market operations, regulation, energy efficiency, low-carbon development, and research and innovation.There is an important foreign policy aspect to the Energy Union, given the imperative of managing security and supply risks in Europe’s neighbourhood and further afield. By addressing structural divisions between member states, the Energy Union could have a marked beneficial effect on the EU’s capacity to conduct a unified and effective foreign policy.Development of the Energy Union presents abundant challenges, however. Policy and legislative changes will need to be coordinated across 28 countries. Variations in EU member states’ attitudes to security and energy policy may lead to differences in, or clashes between, priorities. The wider context is also complicated. Interrelated challenges rooted in broader policy issues include the partial transition to low-carbon energy, and concerns over competitiveness relative to other major economies.The current EU approach to energy security and infrastructure focuses on natural gas. This ‘gas first’ approach risks crowding out other responses to the energy security challenge. It could result in the creation of ‘stranded assets’, if the future gas demand on which investments are predicated does not match projections. A narrow focus on new gas infrastructure could also impede development of other dimensions of the Energy Union.The markets for coal, oil, gas and renewables are changing significantly. The shale oil and gas ‘revolution’ in the United States has altered the economics of hydrocarbon fuels, and the plunge in oil prices since mid-2014 is causing energy businesses in the EU to reassess investment plans.The EU is rapidly expanding the use of renewable energy. Dramatically falling prices for renewables will challenge traditional energy utility business models. How the Energy Union enables market access for new business models will be key to determining future energy trajectories. Department/project Europe Programme, UK-EU27 Energy Cooperation, Energy, Environment and Resources Programme Full Article
cli Post-Paris: Taking Forward the Global Climate Change Deal By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 09:38:39 +0000 21 April 2016 Inevitably, the compromises of the Paris Agreement make it both a huge achievement and an imperfect solution to the problem of global climate change. Rob Bailey Former Research Director, Energy, Environment and Resources @ClimateRob 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. SummaryThe Paris Agreement, reached at COP21, was a triumph of diplomacy. The deal can be characterized as: flexible, combining a ‘hard’ legal shell and a ‘soft’ enforcement mechanism; inclusive, as it was adopted by all 196 parties to the UNFCCC and is therefore the first truly global climate deal; messy, as the bottom-up process of creating nationally determined contributions means the system is unstandardized; non-additive, as the contributions do not currently deliver the agreement’s stated long-term goal of keeping the rise in global average temperature to ‘well below 2˚C’; and dynamic, as the deal establishes a ratchet mechanism that requires more ambitious contributions every five years.The next five years are critical for keeping the below 2˚C goal within reach. A ‘facilitative dialogue’ starting in 2018 will give states the opportunity to revisit their contributions in advance of the agreement entering into force in 2020. International forums, such as the G7 and G20, can play a crucial role in kickstarting these efforts.The ‘coalitions of the willing’ and clubs that were launched under the Lima-Paris Action Agenda provide an innovative space for state and non-state actors to unlock transformational change. However, it is important that these groups set specific and measurable targets to ensure effective delivery of objectives.The post-Paris regime implies a significant role for civil society organizations. However, in many countries the ‘safe operating space’ both for these organizations and for the media is shrinking. Expanding the capacity of civil society and the media in areas such as communications, litigation, project implementation and technical expertise will be important if they are to support the regime effectively. Related documents Briefing: Post-Paris: Taking Forward the Global Climate Change Dealpdf | 391.55 KB Department/project Energy, Environment and Resources Programme Full Article
cli UK Unplugged? The Impacts of Brexit on Energy and Climate Policy By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Wed, 25 May 2016 10:43:26 +0000 26 May 2016 In the field of energy and climate change policy, remaining in the EU offers the best balance of policy options for Britain’s national interests. Download PDF Antony Froggatt Senior Research Fellow, Energy, Environment and Resources Programme LinkedIn Thomas Raines Director, Europe Programme @TomHRaines Google Scholar Shane TomlinsonSenior 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. SummaryOver the last 30 years the EU has played a central role in addressing the competitiveness, security and climate dimensions of energy policy among its member states. The UK has been critical in driving forward integration of the European energy market, and has been a strong advocate of liberalized energy markets and some climate change mitigation policies.If, at the June 2016 referendum, the UK does vote to leave the EU, energy and climate policy will be part of the overall package of issues to be negotiated, as it is unlikely that each sector will be treated separately. The model of relations for energy and climate may well be determined by political and public sentiment on higher-profile issues such as freedom of movement, rather than by what is best for the UK in these policy areas.The UK is increasingly reliant on imports, including from and through continental Europe, and its energy market is deeply integrated with that of its European neighbours. As a growing share of the UK’s electricity is exchanged with EU partners, it would be neither possible nor desirable to ‘unplug’ the UK from Europe’s energy networks. A degree of continued adherence to EU market, environmental and governance rules would be inevitable.This paper reviews the risks and trade-offs associated with five possible options for a post-exit relationship. Of these, the Norway or the Energy Community models would be the least disruptive, enabling continuity in energy market access, regulatory frameworks and investment; however, both would come at the cost of accepting the vast majority of legislation while relinquishing any say in its creation. The UK would thus have less, rather than more, sovereignty over energy policy.The Switzerland, the Canada and the WTO models offer the possibility of greater sovereignty in a number of areas, such as buildings and infrastructure standards as well as state aid. None the less, each would entail higher risks, with greater uncertainty over market access, investment and electricity prices. These models would reduce or even eliminate the UK’s contribution to the EU budget, but would also limit or cut off access to EU funding mechanisms.All five Brexit models would undermine the UK’s influence in international energy and climate diplomacy. The UK would no longer play any direct role in shaping the climate and energy policies of its EU neighbours, at a time when the EU’s proposed Energy Union initiatives offer the prospect of a more integrated and effective European energy sector. A decision to leave the EU would make it easier for a future UK government to change direction on climate policy, since only a change in domestic legislation would be required.‘Brexit’ could affect the balance of energy policy among the remaining member states. In its absence, the centre of gravity for EU energy policy might shift away from market mechanisms and result in weaker collective action on greenhouse gas reduction targets.In the field of energy and climate change policy, remaining in the EU offers the best balance of policy options for Britain’s national interests: the UK would continue to benefit from the integrated energy market, while maintaining influence over its direction and minimizing uncertainty for crucial investment. Department/project Europe Programme, UK-EU27 Energy Cooperation, Energy, Environment and Resources Programme Full Article
cli The UK's Decision to Leave the EU: What Next for UK Energy and Climate? By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 12:00:01 +0000 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. Department/project Energy, Environment and Resources Programme Owen Grafham Manager, Energy, Environment and Resources Programme +44 (0)20 7957 5708 Email Full Article
cli Security and Climate Change: Are we Living in 'The Age of Consequences'? By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 14:23:00 +0000 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 StateMajor 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 EnvoyDr Patricia Lewis, Research Director, International Security, Chatham HouseChair: 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. Department/project Energy, Environment and Resources Programme Full Article
cli The Climate vs. Donald Trump By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 11:49:29 +0000 19 November 2016 Rob Bailey Former Research Director, Energy, Environment and Resources @ClimateRob 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 testThe 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 questionsThe 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 Full Article
cli The Impacts of the Demand for Woody Biomass for Power and Heat on Climate and Forests By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:52:15 +0000 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. Download PDF Duncan Brack Associate Fellow, Energy, Environment and Resources Programme @DuncanBrack Google Scholar 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. SummaryThe 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. Department/project Energy, Environment and Resources Programme, The Environmental Impact of the Use of Biomass for Power and Heat Full Article
cli Airbnb laying off 1,900 employees due to travel decline By jamaica-gleaner.com Published On :: Wed, 06 May 2020 14:14:35 -0500 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... Full Article
cli Vinay Prasad - there is overdiagnosis in clinical trials By feeds.bmj.com Published On :: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 17:11:07 +0000 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... Full Article
cli Talk Evidence - Z drugs, subclinical hypothyroidism and Drazen's dozen By feeds.bmj.com Published On :: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 16:58:44 +0000 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... Full Article
cli Climate change will make universal health coverage precarious By feeds.bmj.com Published On :: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 14:26:52 +0000 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... Full Article