Rafael Leal-Arcas

Carbon & Climate Law Review, Volume 7 (2013), Issue 1, Page 34 - 42

Both the trade and climate change regimes have their own goals and tools. The main goals of the international trading system are trade liberalization, citizens’ welfare, economic growth, and the optimal use of the world’s natural resources. There is a set of closed and defined trade policy tools (i.e., trade regulation): tariffs, quantitative restrictions, trade remedies, subsidies, norms and standards, process and production methods, intellectual property rights, government procurement, services regulation et cetera, to name but a few. The main goals of climate change policy, on the other hand, relate to environmental protection, sustainable development, and the preservation of ecosystems. To achieve these goals, climate change law uses the following policy tools across international law: trade policy tools, funding programs, taxes, permissions, prohibitions, international standards, and financial instruments. This paper advocates the importance of involving major greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters through large preferential trade agreements (PTAs), such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, with strong climate change chapters and through economic partnership agreements as avenues to mitigate GHG emissions. PTAs have become a necessity because of the stagnation of the multilateral trading system. The question is how to persuade countries to be parties to climate-based PTAs, and economic incentives for parties are a possibility. Regional trade arrangements could be designed to provide for an attractive package to settle trade-offs and conflicts of interest as well as facilitate the ultimate goal of creating a global climate regime. In proposing climate solutions through trade agreements, the paper also tries to stimulate non-Annex I countries to undertake GHG emissions reduction. Trade mechanisms can be an effective tool for securing environmental objectives. A regional approach seems more realistic than aiming for a global climate agreement. Both approaches (regional and global) share the objective of creating a strong international framework for climate action. However, they differ on how to achieve the goal.

Rafael Leal-Arcas, Andrew Filis-Yelaghotis

Carbon & Climate Law Review, Volume 6 (2012), Issue 2, Page 128 - 148

The term “geoengineering” relates to the various strategies and techniques aimed at containing and, in some cases, reversing the effects of anthropogenic and other forms of environmental degradation. These strategies and techniques range from the fairly innocuous to the highly scientifically and politically controversial. Given the transboundary effect of environmental degradation and the urgency that this creates, the concerted efforts of the international community are indispensable to usefully enlist whatever benefits geoengineering is capable of offering. However, serious obstacles stand in the way of the international community acting in unison. This paper seeks to outline the various contentious issues regarding geoengineering that arise in relation to its ethical, technological, political, and trade-related legal dimensions. Along with State actors, it is likely that this field of activity would be highly reliant on market mechanisms to deliver the technological solutions and capital investment that are necessary. Clear rules in relation to how these strategies and techniques ought to be governed are in urgent need. Rules should not be limited to the governance aspects, but should also provide for the commercial use of geoengineering.