共查询到18条相似文献，搜索用时 437 毫秒
1.
基于自然的解决方案：中国应对气候变化领域的政策进展、问题与对策 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
基于自然的解决方案（NbS）在应对气候变化领域的重要作用日益受到国际社会的关注。本文将NbS在应对气候变化领域的生态系统划分为森林、草地、农田、湿地、海洋、城市,采用传统环境政策工具分类,将六大生态系统的政策工具划分为命令控制型、经济激励型、自愿参与型三类。在此基础上,梳理构建NbS在我国应对气候变化领域的政策框架。结果表明,我国初步形成了以命令控制型政策为主,重视通过经济激励型政策引导,并逐步完善自愿参与型政策的NbS政策体系。然而,NbS在我国应对气候变化领域的政策仍存在诸多问题,包括NbS尚未成为应对气候变化的主流措施、缺乏自上而下的管理机制、未形成理论与实践的有机统一、资金来源单一、技术支撑和能力建设薄弱、公众参与度有待进一步加强等。为发挥NbS在我国应对气候变化领域的潜力,建议将NbS纳入我国下阶段国家自主贡献更新文件中,争取提出有关NbS的定量承诺,推动NbS成为应对气候变化的主流措施,构建自上而下的管理机制,建立多元化的资金投入机制,加强从理论到实践、从路径到政策的研究,提升能力保障和公众参与度。 相似文献
2.
林业作为实施“基于自然的解决方案（NbS）”的重要领域和路径选择,在落实NbS行动中越来越受到各国政府和专家学者的广泛支持。文中在回顾国内外NbS相关资料的基础上,总结分析了林业领域NbS的内涵和路径、国际和国内相关政策及已采取的措施,重点分析了林业NbS路径的减排潜力、成本与效益。从全球范围看,造林和再造林路径具有较高的技术减排潜力,而减少毁林和森林经营管理是相对更具有成本效益的增汇减排路径。中国对林业NbS的实践及科学研究等尚显不足,但已有的重大林业生态工程已经产生了显著的减排效益和经济效益。未来需要在林业NbS相关标准与计量体系建设、减排技术与经济潜力研究、激励与保障机制等政策研究,以及增强公众意识等方面进一步深化和发展。 相似文献
3.
气候变化与生物多样性丧失是当前全球面临的两大热点和难点环境问题,二者协同推进的必要性和重要性也在全球范围内形成广泛共识。文中在总结我国“双碳”目标下应对气候变化与保护生物多样性协同的现状与挑战的基础上,对近年来各国应对气候变化和保护生物多样性协同方面的政策实践进行了系统梳理与总结,各主要国家近年来在战略规划、生态空间、绿色金融、科技创新等方面进行了大量实践探索以推动二者协同,在这些实践推动下,全球已逐渐将“碳中和”和“生物多样性”融入生态环境治理新格局、将基于自然的解决方案（NbS）作为二者协同领域最有效的新路径、将绿色金融和科技创新作为推动二者协同发展的新动力。鉴于此,我国在二者协同推进中亟需将生物多样性保护纳入双碳“1+N”政策体系,注重将基于自然的解决方案融入城镇化、乡村振兴等重大国家发展战略,鼓励引导绿色金融、数字科技支持二者协同的重点领域,提高公众认知和社会参与,以推进二者协同并助力我国成为全球生态治理的重要参与者、贡献者和引领者。 相似文献
4.
控制温室气体排放、减缓气候变化已成为国际社会关注的热点,中国作为温室气体排放大国,承受着巨大的国际压力。未来一段时间内,如果按照发达国家的技术路线,中国的氢氟碳化物（HFCs）的生产和消费将快速增长,其排放量将迅速增加。采用低全球增温潜势（GWP）技术及采取减排措施,HFCs领域具有很大减排潜力;将HFCs减排纳入中国减排温室气体的整体战略中,对推进国家水平的温室气体减排将作出重要贡献。当前,中国面临着重要机遇,比如针对含氟温室气体相对完备的履约机制可保证一定的减排技术转让和资金支持,履约行动将促进相关行业的节能减排与技术创新等;同时中国也面临着挑战,比如HFCs的巨大消费需求及其排放量的迅速增长,尤其是HFCs替代技术存在局限性等。 相似文献
5.
近年来,碳捕集利用与封存(CCUS)作为减缓气候变化的关键技术之一,得到国际社会广泛关注。政府间气候变化专门委员会(IPCC)第六次评估报告(AR6)第三工作组报告对CCUS进行了重新定位,并围绕减排潜力、减排成本、综合效益及应用前景等方面,对CCUS相关技术进行了系统全面评估。结论显示,CCUS技术是全球气候目标实现不可或缺的减排技术组合,到21世纪中叶有潜力实现累积千亿吨级减排效应,但当前CCUS技术成熟度整体处于示范阶段,成本较高,减排潜力有待进一步释放。综合考虑CCUS可以有效降低巨额资产搁浅风险、具有良好社会环境效益等因素,我国应结合自身“富煤、贫油、少气”的资源禀赋和基本国情,将CCUS作为战略性技术,统筹政策顶层设计、加速技术体系构建、探索市场激励机制、加强国际科技合作,促进CCUS技术发展。 相似文献
6.
国际气候治理中的公正转型议题涉及就业、关乎民生,是各国都很关注的政策领域之一,因此也被视为是支持应对气候变化的一种重要社会机制。近年来,国际社会积极推动建设气候治理公正转型制度体系,各国也在所制定的国家应对气候变化战略和规划中越来越多地提出与公正转型和就业相关的目标与措施。公正转型议题在国际气候治理进程中主流化的趋势给中国参与和引领全球气候治理带来了新的机遇与挑战。中国应加强关于该问题的基础性研究;在国内应对气候变化的行动中充分考虑该问题,保障受影响就业群体获得社会公正对待;总结具体实践经验;在政策领域协调上做好新的布局;积极参与《联合国气候变化框架公约》下公正转型治理体系的构建中。 相似文献
7.
2010年5月英国保守党和自由民主党组成联合政府执政,其气候变化政策也相应发生了一些变化。根据7月27日英国政府公布的首份《年度能源报告》、卡梅伦首相的文章及能源与气候变化大臣休恩的演讲,可粗线条勾勒出其气候变化政策的一些基本走向。在国际框架上,新政府把积极推动国际减排,维护英国低碳技术的国际商业利益作为其未来施政的一个重要方向,更加坚持发展中国家承担减排任务及"三可"机制。在英国本土,气候变化的重点则由原来的"减排"转而强调"适应"。英国新政府十分重视与中国在低碳领域的合作。对于中国而言,机遇与挑战并存,需要尽快尽早制定国家级的低碳发展战略。 相似文献
8.
9.
谢来辉 《气候变化研究进展》2008,4(2):131-132
在全球气候变化问题不断升温的大背景下,低碳经济的概念频繁见诸报端.旨在实现发展和减排双赢的低碳经济理念正受到国际学术界的推崇.2007年政府间气候变化专门委员会(IPCC)第四次评估报告发布以后,人类必须一致应对气候变化的挑战已成为当今国际社会的主流话语. 相似文献
10.
需求侧减排是协同实现碳中和目标与民生福祉、社会公平改善的重要抓手,也是以“人”为中心连接不同可持续发展目标的关键纽带。IPCC第六次评估报告首次独立成章（第五章）介绍应对气候变化的需求侧解决方案。报告将需求侧减排与福祉、公平等目标关联起来,依循“避免-转变-改进（ASI）”的战略框架,梳理了需求侧的减排措施和减排潜力;揭示了社会文化、心理活动、技术水平和基础设施等因素对需求侧减排的关键驱动作用,指出多种驱动因素之间相互依赖,呈现叠加效应;明确了激发需求侧减排的动力和能力需要科学的行为干预和政策设计以推动系统性变革。文中对该章主要结论做扼要解读,同时就该章节对中国的相关研究和政策启示展开讨论。 相似文献
11.
Annabelle Workman Grant Blashki Kathryn J. Bowen David J. Karoly John Wiseman 《Climate Policy》2019,19(5):585-597
The 2015 Paris Agreement requires increasingly ambitious emissions reduction efforts from its member countries. Accounting for ancillary positive health outcomes (health co-benefits) that result from implementing climate change mitigation policies can provide Parties to the Paris Agreement with a sound rationale for introducing stronger mitigation strategies. Despite this recognition, a knowledge gap exists on the role of health co-benefits in the development of climate change mitigation policies. To address this gap, the case study presented here investigates the role of health co-benefits in the development of European Union (EU) climate change mitigation policies through analysis and consideration of semi-structured interview data, government documents, journal articles and media releases. We find that while health co-benefits are an explicit consideration in the development of EU climate change mitigation policies, their influence on final policy outcomes has been limited. Our analysis suggests that whilst health co-benefits are a key driver of air pollution mitigation policies, climate mitigation policies are primarily driven by other factors, including economic costs and energy implications.
Key policy insights
Health co-benefits are quantified and monetized as part of the development of EU climate change mitigation policies but their influence on the final policies agreed upon is limited.
Barriers, such as the immediate economic costs associated with climate action, inhibit the influence of health co-benefits on the development of mitigation policies.
Health co-benefits primarily drive the development of EU air pollution mitigation policies.
The separation of responsibility for GHG and non-GHG emissions across Directorate Generals has decoupled climate change and air pollution mitigation policies, with consequences for the integration of health co-benefits in climate policy.
12.
Land-use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) activities will play an important role in global climate change mitigation. Many carbon schemes require the delivery of both climate and rural development benefits by mitigation activities conducted in developing countries. Agroforestry is a LULUCF activity that is gaining attention because of its potential to deliver climate benefits as well as rural development benefits to smallholders. There is hope that agroforestry can deliver co-benefits for climate and development; however experience with early projects suggests co-benefits are difficult to achieve in practice. We review the literature on agroforestry, participatory rural development, tree-based carbon projects and co-benefit carbon projects to look at how recommended project characteristics align when trying to generate different types of benefits. We conclude that there is considerable tension inherent in designing co-benefit smallholder agroforestry projects. We suggest that designing projects to seek ancillary benefits rather than co-benefits may help to reduce this tension. 相似文献
13.
Marianne Aasen 《Climate Policy》2013,13(2):213-230
This article contributes to the existing literature by investigating the importance of value orientations for the Norwegian public's climate change concern, by analysing data from a national Gallup Poll from 2003 to 2011. Logistic regressions were conducted to investigate the importance of individualistic and egalitarian values for climate concern, and whether the groups of different value orientations have polarized in their climate concern over time. Respondents who hold less individualistic values and those holding egalitarian values are found more likely to be concerned about climate change than are those holding individualistic and less egalitarian values. Furthermore, the analyses find polarization in climate concern in the period for both value orientations. Increased focus on policy instruments in the political debate may be one explanation for values being increasingly salient. Future research should focus on studying ways to formulate policies given variations in values. One way would be to develop solutions that have co-benefits across groups of different value orientations. However, not all mitigation policies have immediate co-benefits for everyone. Research on how changes in the institutional setting may enhance the logic of social responsibility seems crucial.Policy relevanceIt is an important social science contribution to increase our understanding of public positions on climate change for developing effective responses to this vexing problem. This study identifies polarization over time between subgroups of different value orientations in their climate change concern. This may have implications for policies, as political solutions may be increasingly dependent on the composition of political leadership. Society and politicians should look for mitigation policies that have co-benefits across groups of different value orientations when possible. However, not all mitigation policies have immediate co-benefits for everyone. One option then is to change the institutional settings from enhancing the logic of individual benefits to enhancing the logic of social benefits for behaviour crucial for mitigating climate change. Finally, narratives about a low-emitting society that are attractive for all groups of value orientations should be emphasized. 相似文献
14.
A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways 总被引：4，自引：1，他引：3
Brian C. O’Neill Elmar Kriegler Keywan Riahi Kristie L. Ebi Stephane Hallegatte Timothy R. Carter Ritu Mathur Detlef P. van Vuuren 《Climatic change》2014,122(3):387-400
The new scenario framework for climate change research envisions combining pathways of future radiative forcing and their associated climate changes with alternative pathways of socioeconomic development in order to carry out research on climate change impacts, adaptation, and mitigation. Here we propose a conceptual framework for how to define and develop a set of Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) for use within the scenario framework. We define SSPs as reference pathways describing plausible alternative trends in the evolution of society and ecosystems over a century timescale, in the absence of climate change or climate policies. We introduce the concept of a space of challenges to adaptation and to mitigation that should be spanned by the SSPs, and discuss how particular trends in social, economic, and environmental development could be combined to produce such outcomes. A comparison to the narratives from the scenarios developed in the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) illustrates how a starting point for developing SSPs can be defined. We suggest initial development of a set of basic SSPs that could then be extended to meet more specific purposes, and envision a process of application of basic and extended SSPs that would be iterative and potentially lead to modification of the original SSPs themselves. 相似文献
15.
16.
《Climate Policy》2002,2(2-3):129-144
Climate change does not yet feature prominently within the environmental or economic policy agendas of developing countries. Yet evidence shows that some of the most adverse effects of climate change will be in developing countries, where populations are most vulnerable and least likely to easily adapt to climate change, and that climate change will affect the potential for development in these countries. Some synergies already exist between climate change policies and the sustainable development agenda in developing countries, such as energy efficiency, renewable energy, transport and sustainable land-use policies. Despite limited attention from policy-makers to date, climate change policies could have significant ancillary benefits for the local environment. The reverse is also true as local and national policies to address congestion, air quality, access to energy services and energy diversity may also limit GHG emissions. Nevertheless there could be significant trade-offs associated with deeper levels of mitigation in some countries, for example where developing countries are dependent on indigenous coal and may be required to switch to cleaner yet more expensive fuels to limit emissions. The distributional impacts of such policies are an important determinant of their feasibility and need to be considered up-front. It follows that future agreements on mitigation and adaptation under the convention will need to recognise the diverse situations of developing countries with respect to their level of economic development, their vulnerability to climate change and their ability to adapt or mitigate. Recognition of how climate change is likely to influence other development priorities may be a first step toward building cost-effective strategies and integrated, institutional capacity in developing countries to respond to climate change. Opportunities may also exist in developing countries to use regional economic organisations to assist in the design of integrated responses and to exploit synergies between climate change and other policies such as those designed to combat desertification and preserve biodiversity. 相似文献
17.
IPCC近期发布了第六次评估报告（AR6）第二工作组（WGII）报告《气候变化：影响、适应和脆弱性》,其中第7章“健康、福祉和不断变化的社区结构”评估了气候变化对人类健康和福祉的当前影响以及未来风险,提出了应对气候变化的解决方案和适应策略。报告明确指出,气候变化对气候敏感传染病和慢性非传染性疾病,以及精神心理健康等的威胁正在增加,并表现出复合暴露和连锁事件的风险,且预计未来风险还会随着全球变暖而进一步加剧。实施积极和有效的气候变化适应措施并快速采取行动,将会在很大程度上减少和避免气候变化导致的健康风险,但不会完全消除所有风险。报告凸显了气候变化健康影响的严重性和紧迫性,未来需要加大对健康领域适应气候变化的科技创新、规划、行动和资金支持。 相似文献
18.
Nature-based solutions (NbS) are gaining traction in high-level, decision-making arenas as a response to global policy challenges. Claiming to be transformative and pluralistic, NbS aim to resolve societal problems through a focus on nature, which is understood to be a benign ally. This uncritical framing of nature may have unintended and inequitable consequences that undermine the emancipatory potential of NbS.In this paper, we highlight the need to pay attention to epistemic and power dimensions that tend to be hidden in NbS. We assume that nature is neither passive nor external to human society, but is instead expressed in frames (reifying modes of expression) that reflect both knowledge and power in social encounters where NbS are used. Drawing upon five cases, we analyse how particular ways of framing nature express and reinforce the power relations that structure people’s interactions. Each of the five cases relies on a nature-based frame to produce knowledge on climate adaptation, peacebuilding and justice.The analysis reveals how frames of nature are enacted in particular contexts, and how this conditions the potential for societal transformation towards sustainability and pluralistic knowledge. We demonstrate how frames of nature can constrain or enable opportunities for various groups to respond to environmental change. We discuss how the NbS paradigm might better incorporate diverse, situated knowledge and subjectivities, and conclude that this will require a more critical evaluation of NbS practice and research. 相似文献