Black Carbon Policy 1: Wherefore art thou

As with any environmental issue, policies are implemented to mitigate and prevent any further damage. Yet black carbon is yet to be the latest craze for policy makers. Highwood and Kinnersley (2006) argue mitigating Black Carbon (BC) emissions has the potential to act as a short term fix for global warming. If this is the case then why are global policy makers not incorporating this form of pollution?

International Long Range Pollution policies.

Long Range Pollution was introduced to international climate policies in 1979. The Geneva Convention on Long range Transboundary Air Pollution was signed in 1979 and implemented in 1983, being the first policy which recognized the issues of transported pollutants. The most recent international agreement, the Gothenburg Protocol implemented in 1999, set limitations on aerosols (sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides), organic compounds and ammonia to be achieved by 2010. Upon completion Europe aimed to reduce sulfur emissions by approximately  63% (in comparison to 1990).

A further policy which focuses on long range pollution is The Climate and Clean Air Coalition, which consists of a series of governments, civil societies and private sectors from countries including Bangladesh, Mexico and the US. The coalition targets methane, Black Carbon and HFCs by raising awareness of these short lived climate pollutants.

Despite this recent incorporation of BC across several political innovations, the pollutant still seems to be lacking across the global environmental scene.The IPCC 5^th report (published in 2013) introduced aerosols and their radiative influences for the first time, yet Black carbon is still nowhere to be seen. It is the incorporation of BC into these global policies and research studies, such as the IPCC, which will help to reduce emissions.

Within the Arctic.

Black carbon in Yukon.
 Should the Arctic really be looking
like this? 

Policies still seem to be few and far between. To combat this issue of long range BC such policies must be integrated on a global scale, and not just by the countries who will come off worse! It seems many of the international climate debates are focused on Green House Gases and ignoring most other forms of pollution. In order to reduce BC emissions and benefit the Arctic this must change! 

Black carbon is a more pressing issue within the Arctic for reasons discussed within my previous post. As a result of this a greater number of policies incorporate black carbon reduction in their plans. The Arctic Council, in particular, play a large role in addressing the issues of black carbon. The Council’s most recent report discusses a framework of action, in which they aim to raise awareness of the black carbon as a climate issue and include stakeholders and national governance in the implementation of international mitigation agreements. Recently, members from the Arctic were present at the COP21 debates, where they spoke about the role of BC in the Arctic. However GHG’s remained the pressing feature of the conference (nothing new there!). Despite the work undertaken by the Arctic Council, still only Norway has developed a national specific plan to reduce SCLPs (Black carbon included within this).