GEOG M1409: Environmental Policy and Politics
School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol
TB1 (Autumn) 2013
Unit Convenor
Dr Malcolm Fairbrother
Lecturer in Global Policy and Politics
School of Geographical Sciences
Contact Information
Office: 2.21N
E-mail: m.fairbrother@bristol.ac.uk
Tel: (0117) 92 88303
Seminar Schedule
Wednesdays 11.00-12:50, SR1
Weeks 1-9, 11
Office Hours
Mondays 14.00-16.00, or by
appointment
Unit Overview and Goals1
The goal of this unit is to make you an effective maker and analyst of public
policies for protecting the natural environment. After completing the unit, you should
know how to devise appropriate policies for resolving environmental problems,
making you well prepared for work in government or another job where you seek to
shape public policy. The unit will introduce you to the various kinds of measures
which governments and other public authorities use to protect the natural
environment, and to the benefits and costs of these measures. We will seek to
understand the drivers of environmental problems generally. And we will discuss the
importance of assessing a measure’s effectiveness, and the kinds of techniques and
research methods available for conducting environmental policy analyses.
In principle, most people say they believe in environmental protection; but in
practice, environmental measures usually encounter some kind of opposition, and
environmental policymaking is contentious. For this reason, policymakers and policy
analysts need to understand the political context in which policies get made—
including opponents’ motives, worldviews, and beliefs; the nature and impact of
public opinion; political institutions; and the challenges of coordinating policy
internationally. The unit therefore briefly covers these kinds of political issues as well.
The readings consist of policy documents, research reports, academic
papers, and selections from textbooks on environmental economics and law. They
address a diversity of environmental problems and issues, ranging in scale from the
local to the global, and drawn from many different countries.
The structure of the unit’s seminars will vary somewhat from week to week,
but will typically include a lecture by the instructor, plus some sort of plenary or small
group discussion, or a simulation (negotiations or Press Conference—see below).
Active participation is essential: you must do the required readings before each
seminar, bring questions and topics for discussion, and arrive at the simulations
ready to participate effectively.
The simulations will focus on two environmental topics we will revisit multiple
times: regulations on air pollution from ships in the European Union, and the
establishment of a national greenhouse gas emissions strategy incorporating a tax
and/or tradable permit scheme.
Assessments2
1
Note that the contents of this document supersede anything circulated previously, such as an MSc
Course Handbook.
2
There are three compulsory assignments for the unit:
(1) First Negotiation Analysis (0%; maximum 600 words; due 17 October)
This document will represent and summarise your preparations for the first
simulation. In this document, you will report your individual negotiating objectives
and priorities, and reasons for them, and you should discuss key issues likely to
arise in the negotiations. You should use the word “I” (and maybe “we” in the context
of playing your role), and incorporate key concepts covered in lectures and readings.
You should role-play appropriately, pursuing “your” interests, and expressing values
and beliefs appropriate to your role.
Note that this assignment is compulsory, but counts 0% towards your unit
mark. I will give you a mark and some feedback, which you can use to improve your
performance in the next simulation.
(2) Second Negotiation Analysis (30%; maximum 1000 words; due 14 November)
This document will represent and summarise your preparations for the second
simulation. The instructions are the same as for the First Negotiation Analysis,
though by now you should have developed your skills as a negotiator and as a policy
analyst. You should clearly articulate both your ideal outcome(s) and what you
realistically hope to achieve. You are free to make reference to existing/prior policies,
schemes, and initiatives elsewhere in the world, and again you should role-play
appropriately.
The simulation will conclude with a “Press Conference,” by which time your
group will have circulated a written summary of the results of your negotiations.
Based on that summary, and what you say in the Press Conference, your peers in
other groups will (anonymously) assess your performance as a negotiator. Their
assessment will be reflected in your mark on this assignment—potentially raising or
lowering your mark (on the 101-point scale) by up to five marks.
(3) Policy and Political Analysis (70%; maximum 3500 words; due 19 December)
For this assignment, you will write an analysis of an environmental policy
problem/ issue of your choice. (You must choose an issue that can be addressed in
some way by public policy.) Although the topic you write about is up to you, I
recommend that you discuss your idea with me and get my go-ahead before you
spend too much time researching it. The analysis will consist of two parts: First, a
Policy Memo of no more than 800 words, covering no more than two sides of A4
(including any tables, figures, etc., if you use them). Second, a more in-depth
Research Report on the issue, including its political aspects.3
The Policy Memo must:
 Be addressed to a specific reader.4
Be sure not to plagiarise (present others’ work as your own). If you have any questions about
plagiarism, please ask, since your work will be run through the Turnitin software. For all assignments,
use an agreeable font, font size, margins, etc. References at the end do not count towards the word
limit, but everything else does (i.e., anything you expect me actually to read).
3 References should appear at the end of the Research Report, not the Memo.
4 Pick a sensible hypothetical recipient, identified by a real or plausible title—someone working for a
relevant (local, national, international) policymaking authority. You might identify a title by looking at
the organisational structures of, for example, national environment ministries. Many are on the web,
2
3



Briefly review the issue at hand. Include relevant information about the
magnitude of a problem, what research says about it, etc. Note that it will be
hard to boil down a potentially complex issue into such a short space, and
part of what you will be assessed on is your ability to make good choices
about what information is most worth including here.
Present some policy options (one of which may be the status quo), with a brief
comment about their various benefits and costs, or pros and cons. The
benefits and costs can be environmental, economic, political, or whatever you
consider most important for the policymaker. Be as specific as possible.
The Policy Memo may also, optionally, recommend one option. (Normally, this
recommended option will follow naturally from the benefits and costs you have
presented.)
The Research Report will elaborate on what you discuss in the Policy Memo. This
part must include the following elements:
 A fuller discussion of the (environmental, economic, political, social, etc.)
benefits and costs of the different policy options. You may choose to address
the timescale on which these benefits and costs will be realised, uncertainties
about them, and/or who will receive/pay them. If relevant, you may wish to
address issues of implementation/administration and/or enforcement.
 An analysis of distributional/equity implications, if relevant, and if you have not
addressed them in the discussion of benefits and costs.
 Political aspects of the issue, again if you have not addressed them in the
discussion of benefits and costs. This discussion could address public opinion
on, or the likely public response to, the various policy options; the identity,
stances, and power of relevant interest groups; and perhaps how one or more
policy options might be framed/presented for maximum acceptance.
 How do you know all of the above? In other words, what is the evidence basis
for what you have said about benefits and costs, distributional/equity
concerns, and political aspects? Have similar measures been tried previously
elsewhere, such that lessons can be learned from the experiences of others?
Is there a relevant research literature?
 What kinds of further research or consultations, if any, could contribute to the
elaboration of effective policy proposals and our knowledge of which option
should be selected? Such research could address any of the natural,
economic, social, or political aspects of the issue. If further research seems
important for effectively confronting the policy dilemma, you may optionally
wish to describe, briefly, one or more appropriate research designs/methods.
Schedule of Topics and Required Readings
Week 1: Overview, Planning, and an Introduction to Policy Analyses
Readings:
 none
We begin with an overview of the topics to be covered in the unit, the learning
objectives, the simulations/role-plays, and the unit’s assessments. Then we will have
such as the Czech Republic’s at http://www.mzp.cz/en/organisational_structure and Australia’s at
http://www.environment.gov.au/about/structure/pubs/structure.pdf.
4
a discussion of the topics you are each, at this early stage, thinking about addressing
in your policy analyses. What is the environmental problem, and what are the
barriers to its resolution? We finish with a lecture about some fundamentals of
environmental policymaking: the role of the state (government) in protecting the
environment; reasons why some people might object to a given environmental
protection measure; and the role of science in environmental policymaking. I will also
explain why I think this unit needs to cover a fair bit of both economics and politics,
and perhaps talk briefly about my own background and expertise.
Week 2: The Environment, Externalities, and Scarcity
* overview and formation of groups for next week’s simulation, on the issue of
regulating SO2 emissions from ships in European waters
Readings:
 Krugman 2010
 Ostrom 1990: 1-28 (Chapter 1)
 Endres 2011: 1-29 (Part 1)
 http://news.sciencemag.org/europe/2013/08/pesticidemakers-challenge-e.u.neonicotinoid-ban-court
 http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/economics/scc.html
Supplementary:
 Hardin 1968
 Weiss 1989
This week we cover some fundamentals of environmental economics, focussing on a
number of key concepts: market failures, common property resources, public goods,
collective action problems, scarcity, the tragedy of the commons, and—most
importantly—externalities. The readings and lecture this week will illustrate the basic
logic of game theory, and we will also briefly discuss the idea of a discount rate and
issues of inter-generational distribution. We begin to consider the policy and political
implications of an externalities-based view of the environment. Today’s seminar will
also include an overview of the issues about which you will be negotiating next week.
Week 3: Policy Instruments I
* simulation of UK parliamentary negotiations over the European Union’s regulation
of air pollution from ships
* DUE (via Blackboard): an individual statement of your negotiating objectives and
priorities for today’s simulation (compulsory, but not marked)
Readings:
 Endres 2011: 102-150 (“Standard-Oriented Instruments of Environmental
Policy”)
 Bugge 2009
 OECD 2011a
 Seas At Risk et al. 2008
 Bell et al. 2013: 245-247, 257-260 (on C&C versus economic instruments)
 https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/increasing-the-use-of-low-carbontechnologies/supporting-pages/the-renewables-obligation-ro
 http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commonsselect/transport-committee/news/sulpher-new-inquiry/
Supplementary:
 Gullison et al. 2007
5
 KPMG 2013
 GLOBE International 2013
 Bell et al. 2013: 228-267 (Chapter 8, on regulation)
 Schembari et al. 2012
What can governments (“the state”) do to help protect the environment? This week
we consider the range of policy instruments that public authorities typically have at
their disposal: “command and control” regulations, legal liability laws,
fees/taxes/charges, tradable permits, subsidies, information disclosure laws, depositrefund schemes, and voluntary schemes. We consider the challenges of choosing
from among these options, reviewing their pros and cons. The reading from the
OECD provides some practical advice about the design of “green taxes,” and the
one from KPMG surveys their prevalence.
Week 4: Economic Development and the Environment
* DUE (via e-mail, at least 24 hours before the seminar): one summary per group of
the outcome of your negotiations last week (compulsory, but not marked)
* Press Conference for each group
* general discussion of the simulation and the negotiation outcomes
Readings:
 Romer 2007
 Dasgupta et al. 2002
 OECD 2011b
 Dietz et al. 2007
 MacKay 2008
 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/10/opinion/pollution-economics.html
 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-17/china-emission-tradingexperiment-unlikely-to-ease-cities-smog.html
Supplementary:
 Kauppi et al. 2006
 Persha et al. 2011
 Grossman and Krueger 1995
 Zheng et al. 2011
 Zero Carbon Britain 2010
Having looked at the tools governments have at their disposal, this week we
consider whether those tools are up to the job: Are they enough to save the
environment, given the pressures of economic growth and development? Is further
economic growth incompatible with environmental protection, and maybe even the
viability of continued human life on Earth? This week’s readings consider the
relationship between economic development and the environment, assessing
differences in environmental outcomes across nations, and patterns in how
environmental performance has changed over time.
Week 5: Power, Politics, and Environmental Protection
* briefing for second simulation (on national GHG emission reduction strategies)
* formation of groups for the second simulation
Readings:
 Michaelowa 1998
 Boyce 2007
 Kelemen and Vogel 2010
6



Pearce 2006
Harrison 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/22/world/asia/as-chinas-environmentalwoes-worsen-infighting-emerges-as-biggest-obstacle.html
Supplementary:
 Bugge 2009 (re-read)
 Lambin et al. 2001
 Miles and Kapos 2008
 Lemos and Roberts 2008
 Canadell and Raupach 2008
The concept of externalities implies that environmental degradation and protection
are issues of distribution and justice. It also suggests that protecting the environment
will be contentious, and difficult. Under what conditions, then, can effective
environmental protections be imposed? What makes them more politically feasible?
This week, we think about the place of power in environmental policymaking, and
about the roles of various kinds of actors: corporations, environmental organisations,
politicians, and bureaucrats.
Week 6: International Environmental Coordination
Readings:
 Mitchell 2003
 Endres 2011: 250-256 (on the Kyoto Protocol) and 270-282 (on the EU ETS)
 Bell et al. 2013: 137-173 (Chapter 6, on international environmental law)
 Kerr 2013
 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/16/ecuador-abandons-yasuniamazon-drilling
Supplementary:
 Birnie et al. 2009: Chapter 2
 Putnam 1988
 Biermann 2002
 Biermann and Pattberg 2008
Having focussed previously on environmental problems solvable with interventions
by a single national government, this week we turn to environmental problems
whose solution requires coordinated action by multiple governments. We assess the
sources of nations’ international environmental policies, and we confront the
similarities and differences between national and international decision- and policymaking—as well as the way that international negotiations are “two-level games.”
We identify some key international organisations, forums, and agreements for
environmental protection, and consider cases of both successful and failed
international coordination—plus ongoing negotiations about REDD+.
Week 7: Household Behaviours and Public Opinion
* DUE (via Blackboard, 14 November): Negotiations Analysis
* simulation on national GHG emission reduction strategies
Readings:
 OECD 2011c: pages TBD
 OECD 2006: 152-155 (“Enhancing Public Acceptance”) and 133-144
(“Impacts on Income Distribution”)
 Green Fiscal Commission 2009
7




Department of Energy and Climate Change 2011 (pages TBA)
Dietz et al. 2009
Bell et al. 2013: 314-322 (part of Chapter 10, on public participation)
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2292854/poll-uk-energy-policy-is-notgreen-enough
 http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Take-action/Find-a-grant/Green-Dealand-ECO
Supplementary:
 Eurobarometer 2011
Resolving many environmental problems entails changing household behaviours.
This week we look at research on the determinants of households’ environmental
impacts, and on the tools that governments can use to encourage less (or more)
environmentally damaging activities. We also consider what is arguably the most
important thing that members of the public can do to protect the environment:
encouraging politicians to enact more environmentally friendly policies. Survey
research clarifies what the public wants and believes about environmental problems,
and what people perceive as appropriate environmental policies.
Week 8: Environmental Programs and their Evaluation
* DUE (via e-mail, before the seminar): one summary per group of the outcome of
your negotiations the previous week (compulsory, but not marked)
* Press Conference for each group—with peer assessment
Readings:
 Ferraro 2009
 GAO 2011
 Gray and Shimshack 2011
 Elgie and McClay 2013
 http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2013/08/climate-policy-canada
Supplementary:
 Schembari et al. 2012 (re-read)
 Caplow et al. 2011
We return this week by considering policy implementation. What do we know about
the importance of policy enforcement? And how do we know whether an
environmental instrument/policy is actually working, effective, and/or cost-effective?
“Programme evaluation” is the assessment of a policy’s actual effects, and this
week’s readings clarify how one should think about cause-and-effect relationships.
We also consider the record of some specific policy interventions, such as the
carbon tax assessed by Elgie and McClay.
Week 9: Methods for Environmental Policy and Political Analyses
* briefing for Policy and Political Analyses
* small group discussions about your Policy and Political Analyses
Readings:
 Ferraro 2009 (re-read)
 Diamond 2010
 Angrist and Pischke 2009: 11-24 (Chapter 2, “The Experimental Ideal”)
 Pindyck 2013
Supplementary:
 Ringquist and Kostadinova 2005
8
We conclude by talking about methods and techniques for conducting environmental
policy and political analyses—tools which you may put to use in your dissertations.
Building on the discussion in the week on programme evaluation, we consider
cause-and-effect relationships, and the ways that hypotheses about such
relationships can be assessed. Both quantitative and qualitative methods can be
useful in this regard, and we consider discussions about and good examples of both.
Qualitative tools include informant interviews and analytical comparisons, often put
to use in studies of specific “cases.” Quantitative data can be generated at many
different spatial/administrative levels, ranging from households to countries. Both
space and time can be useful axes of variation in statistical analyses/models. We
also consider Pindyck’s paper as an example of how models can be used to assess
potential outcomes of policies.
Week 10: No Seminar
Week 11:
* presentations and discussions of your Policy and Political Analyses (in progress)
* unit evaluations
The idea behind these presentations is for you to get useful feedback that you can
incorporate in the documents you submit next week. We will decide the specific
organisation/format in the seminar.
Week 12: No Seminar
* DUE (via Blackboard, 19 December): Policy and Political Analysis
References5
Angrist, Joshua D., and Jörn-Steffen Pischke. 2009: Mostly Harmless Econometrics:
An Empiricist’s Companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.**
Bell, Stuart, Donald McGillivray, and Ole Pedersen. 2013. Environmental Law. 8th
Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Biermann, Frank, and Philipp Pattberg. 2008. “Global Environmental Governance:
Taking Stock, Moving Forward.” Annual Review of Environment and
Resources 33:277–94.
Biermann, Frank. 2002: “Institutions for Scientific Advice: Global Environmental
Assessments and Their Influence in Developing Countries.” Global
Governance 8[2]: 195-219.
Birnie, Patricia, Alan Boyle, and Catherine Redgwell. 2009. International Law & the
Environment. 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boyce, James K. 2007. “Inequality and Environmental Protection.” Pp. 314-348 in
Jean-Marie Baland, Pranab Bardhan, and Samuel Bowles (eds.) Inequality,
Cooperation, and Environmental Sustainability. New York: Russell Sage.
Bugge, Hans Christian. 2009. “The Polluter Pays Principle: Dilemmas of Justice in
National and International Contexts.” Pp. 411-428 in Jonas Ebbesson and
Phoebe Okowa (eds.) Environmental Law and Justice in Context. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.**
5
Note that, in the online version of this syllabus, the underlined references are hyperlinked to the
readings they reference. The few readings not available on the web will be made available in the
library and/or via PDFs posted on Blackboard. Readings marked ** are available electronically
through the university library—go to https://www.lib.bris.ac.uk/ALEPH/ and search for the title.
9
Canadell, Josep G., and Michael R. Raupach. 2008. "Managing Forests for Climate
Change Mitigation." Science 320: 1456-7.
Caplow, Susan, Pamela Jagger, Kathleen Lawlor, and Erin Sills. 2011. "Evaluating
Land Use and Livelihood Impacts of Early Forest Carbon Projects: Lessons
for Learning about REDD+." Environmental Science & Policy 14: 152-67.
Dasgupta, Susmita, Benoit Laplante, Hua Wang, and David Wheeler. 2002.
“Confronting the Environmental Kuznets Curve.” Journal of Economic
Perspectives 16[1]: 147-68.
Department of Energy and Climate Change. 2011. “The Green Deal and Energy
Company Obligation Impact Assessment.”
Diamond, Jared. 2010. “Intra-Island and Inter-Island Comparisons.” Pp. 120-141 in
Jared Diamond and James A. Robinson (eds.) Natural Experiments of
History. Cambridge: Belknap.
Dietz, Thomas, Eugene A Rosa, and Richard York. 2007. “Driving the Human
Ecological Footprint.” Frontiers in Ecology and The Environment 5[1]: 13-18.
Elgie, Stewart, and Jessica McClay. 2013. “BC’s Carbon Tax Shift Is Working Well
after Four Years (Attention Ottawa).” Canadian Public Policy 39[s2]: 1-10.
Endres, Alfred. 2011. Environmental Economics: Theory and Policy. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Eurobarometer. 2011. Summary of “Attitudes of European Citizens Towards the
Environment.”
Ferraro, Paul J. 2009. “Counterfactual Thinking and Impact Evaluation in
Environmental Policy.” New Directions for Evaluation 122: 75–84.
GAO. 2011. “Performance Measurement and Evaluation: Definitions and
Relationships.” Glossary.
GLOBE International. 2013. “Climate Legislation Study: A Review of Climate Change
Legislation in 33 Countries.” 3rd Edition.” Edited by Terry Townshend, Sam
Fankhauser, Rafael Aybar, Murray Collins, Tucker Landesman, Michal
Nachmany and Carolina Pavese. Climate and Development Knowledge
Network.
Gray, Wayne B., and Jay P. Shimshack. 2011. “The Effectiveness of Environmental
Monitoring and Enforcement: A Review of the Empirical Evidence.” Review of
Environmental Economics and Policy 0[0]: 1–23.
Green Fiscal Commission. 2009. “Public Opinion on a Green Tax Shift.” Briefing
Paper. June.
Grossman, Gene M., and Alan B. Krueger. 1995. “Economic Growth and the
Environment.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 110[2]: 353-377.
Gullison, Raymond E., et al. 2007. “Tropical Forests and Climate Policy.” Science
316: 985-6.
Hardin, Garrett. 1968. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science 162: 1243-1248.
Harrison, Kathryn. 2010. “The Comparative Politics of Carbon Taxation.” Annual
Review of Law and Social Science 6: 507–29.
HSBC 2012: “Climate Investment Update”
Kauppi, Pekka E., Jesse H. Ausubel, Jingyun Fang, Alexander S. Mather, Roger A.
Sedjo, and Paul E. Waggoner. 2006. “Returning Forests Analyzed with the
Forest Identity.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103[46]:
17574–17579.
Kelemen, R. Daniel, and David Vogel. 2010. “Trading Places: The Role of the United
States and the European Union in International Environmental Politics.”
Comparative Political Studies 2010 43: 427-56.
10
Kerr, Suzi C. 2013. “The Economics of International Policy Agreements to Reduce
Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation.” Review of Environmental
Economics and Policy 7[1]: 47–66.
Krugman, Paul. 2010. “Building a Green Economy.” The New York Times. April 7.
Lambin, Eric F., et al. 2001. “The Causes of Land-Use and Land-Cover Change:
Moving Beyond the Myths.” Global Environmental Change 11: 261-269.
Lemos, Maria Carmen, and J. Timmons Roberts. 2008. “Environmental policymaking networks and the future of the Amazon.” Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society B 363: 1897–1902.
MacKay 2008: synopsis of “Without the Hot Air”
Michaelowa, Axes. 1998: “Climate Policy and Interest Groups – a Public Choice
Analysis.” Intereconomics: 251-59.
Miles, Lera, and Valerie Kapos. 2008. "Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from
Deforestation and Forest Degradation: Global Land-Use Implications."
Science 320: 1454-1455.
Mitchell, Ronald B. 2003: “International Environmental Agreements: A Survey of
Their Features, Formation, and Effects.” Annual Review of Environment and
Resources 28: 429–61.
OECD 2011a: “Environmental Taxation: A Guide for Policy Makers.” September.
OECD 2011b: “Resource Productivity in the G8 and the OECD: A Report in the
Framework of the Kobe 3R Action Plan.”
OECD 2011c: pages TBD out of “Greening Household Behaviour.”
OECD. 2006. The Political Economy of Environmentally Related Taxes. Paris:
OECD.**
Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for
Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pearce, David. 2006. “The Political Economy of an Energy Tax: The United
Kingdom’s Climate Change Levy.” Energy Economics 28: 149–158.
Persha, Lauren, Arun Agrawal, Ashwini Chhatre. 2011. “Social and Ecological
Synergy: Local Rulemaking, Forest Livelihoods, and Biodiversity
Conservation.” Science 331: 1606-1608.
Pindyck, Robert S. 2013. “The Climate Policy Dilemma.” Review of Environmental
Economics and Policy 7[2]: 219–237.
Putnam, Robert D. 1988. “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level
Games.” International Organization 42[3]: 427-60.
Ringquist, Evan J., and Tatiana Kostadinova. 2005. “Assessing the Effectiveness of
International Environmental Agreements: The Case of the 1985 Helsinki
Protocol.” American Journal of Political Science 49[1]: 86-102.
Romer, Paul M. 2007. “Economic Growth.” In David R. Henderson (ed.) The Concise
Encyclopedia of Economics. Liberty Fund.
Schembari, Clara, Fabrizia Cavalli, Eleonora Cuccia, Jens Hjorth, Giulia Calzolai,
Noemi Pérez, Jorge Pey, Paolo Prati, and Frank Raes. 2012. “Impact of a
European Directive on Ship Emissions on Air Quality in Mediterranean
Harbours.” Atmospheric Environment 61: 661-9.
Seas At Risk, Bellona Foundation, North Sea Foundation, European Environmental
Bureau, Swedish NGO Secretariat on Acid Rain, and European Federation for
Transport and Environment. 2008. “Air Pollution from Ships.”
Weiss, Edith Brown. 1989. “Climate Change, Intergenerational Equity and
International Law: An Introductory Note.” Climatic Change 15: 327-335.
Zero Carbon Britain 2010: Executive Summary
11
Zheng, Siqi, Rui Wang, Edward L. Glaeser, and Matthew E. Kahn. 2011. “The
Greenness of China: Household Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Urban
Development.” Journal of Economic Geography 11: 761–792.