The Experts below are selected from a list of 148752 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Rainer Friedrich - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Environmental Damage costs from fossil electricity generation in germany and europe
Energy Policy, 1999Co-Authors: Wolfram Krewitt, Thomas Heck, Alfred Trukenmuller, Rainer FriedrichAbstract:Abstract While studies on external costs of electricity generation generally aim at the calculation of marginal costs for a new increment of power generation, we have applied an extended bottom-up modelling framework to calculate average health and Environmental Damage costs from fossil electricity generation in Germany and Europe. Aggregated average Damage costs provide helpful complementary information to site and technology specific ‘point’ values to be used for more general policy analysis. Environmental Damage costs caused by fossil fired power plants in the EU-15 countries in 1990 amount to about 70 billion US $. Results show that Damage costs per tonne of pollutant emitted might vary considerably by site and – as structural changes like those observed in the eastern part of Germany after the re-unification show – also over time. A comparison of Damage costs and private costs of emission reduction measures in large combustion plants shows that on the European average the implementation of current best available emission reduction technologies is well justified.
Amos Hadas - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
cost assessment of various means of averting Environmental Damage and groundwater contamination from nitrate seepage
Agricultural Water Management, 1997Co-Authors: Nava Haruvy, Amos HadasAbstract:Abstract Fertilizers are used in addition to irrigation water to increase soil fertility and productivity, but cropped areas are sources of groundwater contamination due to loads of nitrates carried downwards by seepage of excess water. The public is increasingly aware of the grave problems of Environmental Damage caused by groundwater pollution. These Environmental effects are not considered by farmers, whose production motivation is to get high profits, and there is a clash of interests between the farmers and the state. Consideration of Environmental issues can be imposed on farmers by constraints on resources or by pricing of inputs. We compare the interests involved and assess the possibilities open to both the individual and the state. Hence, we quantify the agricultural inputs required and suggest appropriate administrative and pricing methods to control resultant Damages. These are estimated by means of a linear-programming based-optimization model applied to the southern region of Israel.
Tong Yang - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
dynamic assessment of Environmental Damage based on the optimal clustering criterion taking oil spill Damage to marine ecological environment as an example
Ecological Indicators, 2015Co-Authors: Tong YangAbstract:Abstract Aim ng at the evaluation of Environmental Damages, we proposed a dynamic evaluation approach based on the optimal cluster criterion. Firstly, a method for sample data standardization was introduced. After determining the measurement of Damage grade, we applied the system cluster analysis approach to classify the grades of corresponding Environmental pollution events. Then, the optimal cluster level was evaluated based on the optimal clustering criterion. By using the marine Environmental Damages caused by 17 marine oil spill events as a sample, we tested the dynamic evaluation method proposed in this article with its practicability. Further, by comparing it with some traditional Damage evaluation methods, we found that their evaluation results were consistent. All these have shown that the dynamic evaluation approach proposed in this paper can meet the requirement of Environmental Damage evaluation. Finally, directions of future researches were pointed out.
H Aiking - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
application of a value based equivalency method to assess Environmental Damage compensation under the european Environmental liability directive
Journal of Environmental Management, 2011Co-Authors: Julia Martinortega, Roy Brouwer, H AikingAbstract:Abstract The Environmental Liability Directive (ELD) establishes a framework of liability based on the ‘polluter-pays’ principle to prevent and remedy Environmental Damage. The ELD requires the testing of appropriate equivalency methods to assess the scale of compensatory measures needed to offset Damage. The aim of this paper is to contribute to fill the existing knowledge gap on the application of the value equivalency approach for Damage compensation in this context. We analyze the toxic spill damaging the Donana National Park (Spain) in 1998. The welfare losses associated with the resource Damage are estimated using non-market valuation and compared to the value of the compensatory measures taken after the accident. Our results show that the in-kind compensation may have been insufficient to offset the welfare losses. We conclude that a more comprehensive knowledge of the human welfare effects caused by Environmental Damage is of substantial importance to determine compensatory remediation, as insufficient information in this respect can lead to erroneous decisions causing loss to society.
Michael Faure - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
compensation for Environmental Damage in china theory and practice
Pace Environmental Law Review, 2014Co-Authors: Michael Faure, Liu JingAbstract:Many have pointed at the fact that the spectacular economic growth in China has come at a high price, especially concerning the Environmental costs related to this growth. There is increasing literature available now, both in and outside of China on the available governance instruments that China is increasingly using in its fight against Environmental pollution. Indeed, with growing economic welfare also the demand for Environmental quality is increasing in China as well.An issue which received less attention so far was the ex post compensation after Environmental pollution occurred. The aim of our study is not so much to look at instruments aiming at prevention of Environmental harm, but to address the question to what extent victims of Environmental harm can be compensated for this harm in China. The concept of victims should obviously be interpreted broadly since victims could also be the environment at large in which case the question arises to what extent for example the government or an NGO may have the right to ask remedies on behalf of the environment. The goal of our study is not only to provide an insight into the “law in the books” by sketching which instruments and remedies are available, but also to address “law in action”, by examining to what extent the various compensation mechanisms are indeed applied in practice as well. To that end we have undertaken some interviews with stakeholders in China in order to obtain information on the way in which Environmental Damage is being remedied. Our focus is on remedies for Environmental harm. Even though the main (traditional) remedy after Damage may be (monetary) compensation, in case of Environmental pollution other remedies (such as restitution) may be relevant as well. Methodologically we will therefore both address available remedies on the basis of the regulatory framework, but also examine to what extent these remedies are indeed applied. Moreover, we will normatively where appropriate, also formulate a few suggestions for reform. The question of how to compensate for Environmental Damage has become a hot topic in China. Almost every day one now can read about cases of Environmental harm with which various Chinese communities are confronted whereby almost every time the question is asked how adequate compensation for this harm can be provided. The issue is also topical given recent legislative changes in China. In December 2009 China introduced a New Tort Liability Law in which important provisions also deal with Environmental liability. Moreover, even though Environmental insurance markets are not yet that well developed in China increasingly both potential victims as well as industry are demanding the development of adequate insurance products to deal with Environmental harm. Strikingly the only domain in which compensation seems to work adequately, not only on paper but also in practice is the domain of marine oil pollution in which international conventions have played an important role. Our paper is set up as follows: after an introduction (1) we will first focus on the role of liability rules in compensating for Environmental harm (2), then we focus on insurance (3) and discuss the specific case of marine oil pollution (4). For every topic first the theoretical possibilities to provide compensation will be sketched; next the question will be addressed what role these mechanisms lay in practice. A few concluding remarks (5) will provide a summary and some policy recommendations.
-
compensation for Environmental Damage in china theory and practice
Pace Environmental Law Review, 2014Co-Authors: Michael Faure, Jing LiuAbstract:to solve many problems in practice.65 There are also several drafts intended to provide more detailed technical guidance on the assessment, monitoring, and management of polluted sites,66 but these drafts have not entered into force yet. In addition to those guidance documents, some local authorities have made efforts to issue their own requirements for prevention and remediation of soil pollution, such as Shengyang, and Chongqing.67 These municipal requirements have many similarities to the national guidance documents.68 65. For example, it does not answer the questions of who should be liable if Damage still emerges after the restoration, and how to allocate the liability between existing and former operators. 66. See generally [CHINA’S NATIONAL Environmental PROTECTION STANDARDS: GUIDELINES FOR RISK ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SITES (DRAFT)] (issued by the Ministry of Envtl. Prot.), available at http://www.sepa.gov.cn/info/bgw/ bbgth/200910/W020091009550671751947.pdf (China); [CHINA’S NATIONAL Environmental PROTECTION STANDARDS: GUIDELINES FOR SOIL REMEDIATION OF CONTAMINATED SITES (DRAFT)] (issued by the Ministry of Envtl. Prot.), available at http://www.mep.gov.cn/gkml/hbb/bgth/200912/W020091223374051865851.pdf (China); [CHINA’S NATIONAL Environmental PROTECTION STANDARDS: TECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR Environmental MONITORING OF SITES (DRAFT)] (issued by the Ministry of Envtl. Prot.), available at http://www.mep.gov.cn/gkml/hbb/bgth/ 201002/W020100208572809009978.pdf (China); [CHINA’S NATIONAL Environmental PROTECTION STANDARDS: THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION FOR Environmental SITE INVESTIGATION (DRAFT)] (issued by the Ministry of Envtl. Prot.), available at http://www.sepa.gov.cn/info/bgw/bbgth/200908/t20090812_ 157381.htm (China), click link [THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR Environmental SITE INVESTIGATION (DRAFT)]; [TEMPORARY SOIL MANAGEMENT FOR Environmental MONITORING OF CONTAMINATED SITES (DRAFT)] (issued by the Ministry of Envtl. Prot.), available at http://www.mep.gov.cn/gkml/hbb/ bgth/200912/W020091223431801518384.pdf (China). 67. For example, in Shenyang, a regulation on contaminated sites remediation and restoration was promulgated in 2008. See [Shenyang Hazardous Waste Pollution Prevention Regulations] (promulgated by the Shenyang City People’s Cong., Oct. 30, 2008, effective Jan. 1, 2009) [hereinafter SHENYANG REGULATION ON PREVENTING POLLUTION FROM DANGEROUS WASTE], available at http://www.ln.gov.cn/zfxx/fggz/gwyfg_3/sy/200902/t20090204_ 330763.html (China). The Chongqing government also issued a document on soil pollution restoration. CHONGQING ENVTL. PROT. BUREAU, [NOTICE ON PROMOTING THE RESTORATION AT CONTAMINATED INDUSTRIAL SITES IN CHONGQING] (May 27, 2013) [hereinafter CHONGQING RESTORATION OF CONTAMINATED SITES REGULATIONS], available at http://www.cq.gov.cn/publicinfo/web/views/Show! detail.action?sid=1106243 (China). 68. See generally SHENYANG REGULATION ON PREVENTING POLLUTION FROM DANGEROUS WASTE, supra note 67; CHONGQING RESTORATION OF CONTAMINATED SITES REGULATIONS, supra note 67. 12 http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr/vol31/iss1/3 FAURE LIU FINAL-NUMBERED 3/26/2014 11:16 AM 238 PACE Environmental LAW REVIEW [Vol. 31 c. Causation, Multiple Tortfeasors, and Burden of Proof With respect to issues that can have a crucial bearing on the effectiveness of Environmental liability as a compensation mechanism, the TLL of 2009 also produced interesting innovations. Article 66 of the TLL provides that: Where any dispute arises over an Environmental pollution, the polluter shall assume the burden to prove that it should not be liable or its liability could be mitigated under certain circumstances as provided for by law or to prove that there is no causation between its conduct and the harm.69 Article 66 completely shifts liability to the polluter. As a consequence of the strict liability introduced in Article 65, it is the polluter who now bears the burden of proving defenses, including exemption or mitigation of liability.70 The polluter also has the burden to prove there is a lack of causation between its activities and the personal or Environmental harm. This could present a potentially dangerous situation for defendants to the extent that they may not be able to show that their activity was not the source of a particular Damage suffered by the plaintiffs.71 However, this is not revolutionary either, since a rule of the reversal of the burden of proof already exists under the CPL of 1992.72 Moreover, the concern of over-deterrence can be balanced through the implementation of this reversal of burden provision in practice, which is often criticized as problematic.73
-
concluding observations to the book shifts in compensation for Environmental Damage tort and insurance law
2008Co-Authors: Michael Faure, A J VerheijAbstract:This paper contains the concluding observations to the book Shifts in Compensation for Environmental Damage, Tort and Insurance Law. In many countries, various shifts have taken place between private and public funding regarding Environmental Damage compensation. This book deals with these shifts. It critically presents shifts in this domain theoretically with many supporting practical examples. Normally, victims of Environmental Damage had to seek relief via private legal mechanisms. In many systems a shift towards public oriented compensation has occurred. This is clear in areas such as international oil pollution and nuclear Damage. This book describes and critically discusses shifts in private and public compensation mechanisms, with empirical data and economic analyses of the effectiveness of the international oil pollution fund's capacity to compensate oil pollution victims. It also describes shifts in some national legal systems towards greater government involvement as well as within specific private legal systems.
-
shifts in compensation for Environmental Damage
Springer US, 2007Co-Authors: Michael Faure, A J VerheijAbstract:From the contents: Introduction (M. Faure, A. Verheij).- Shifts in Governance: Soil Pollution (A. Verheij).- A Shift toward Alternative Compensation Mechanisms for Environmental Damage? (M. Faure).- Shifts in Compensation for Environmental Damage: From Member States to Europe (K. De Smedt).- Shifts in Governance: Oil Pollution (A. Verheij).- Shifts in Governance in the International Regime of Marine Oil Pollution Compensation: A Legal History Perspective (H. Wang).- Maritime Oil Pollution: an Empirical Analysis (R. Hendrickx).- Shifts in Governance in Compensation for Nuclear Damage. 20 Years after Chernobyl (T. Vanden Borre).- Concluding Observations (M. Faure, A. Verheij).- Index.
-
a shift toward alternative compensation mechanisms for Environmental Damage
Tort and Insurance Law, 2007Co-Authors: Michael FaureAbstract:In this book, many shifts in the compensation of Environmental Damage have been discussed, largely dealing with the choice between private and public funding. These contributions dealt especially with the question how, for instance for soil pollution, oil pollution Damage or nuclear accidents, compensation can be achieved either through private or through public funding. In particular, many of these contributions dealt with the way in which regulators have either facilitated private funding or have intervened to provide (additional layers of) public funding. This paper has a different focus. Indeed, in addition to trends in regulation from private funding to public funding and vice versa also within the private funding itself, several shifts can be observed. These shifts largely concern financial mechanisms that have been developed in the market to provide compensation for Environmental harm. Indeed, private actors confronted with Environmental Damage can of course seek a variety of financial or other mechanisms to obtain compensation for that Damage. A traditional and well-known mechanism is insurance, where traditionally the distinction was made between two types of insurance arrangements. On the one hand, a private actor who fears the risk of being victimized by Environmental harm could seek coverage directly from an insurance company. This type of insurance, whereby a victim seeks insurance coverage for his expected losses, is considered so-called first-party insurance. This is distinguished from the type of insurance whereby a private actor seeks insurance coverage for the risk of having to pay compensation to a third party as a result of being held liable. The latter type of insurance is referred to as third-party or liability insurance. It is remarkable that, since the early days of the discovery of Environmental Damage (usually after the so-called “black points” were discovered in the 1970s), the financial mechanism that was developed to compensate Environmental Damage was liability insurance. However, for a variety of reasons, which will be discussed below, liability insurance was not able to provide a complete and/or satisfactory cover for Environmental harm. As a result, a shift has taken place from liability cover for Environmental Damage to a variety of other financial mechanisms. For instance, to some extent, corporate actors have decided to simply cover some risks simply themselves, for instance by creating reserves for potential Environmental Damage.1 Other alternatives have also been developed, such as the creation of ex ante guarantees and deposits. In addition, some modest experiments have taken place (mostly in the U.S.) with the use of so-called Alternative Risk Transfer (ART) which consists basically of using capital markets to cover Environmental risks.2 Many other alternatives to liability insurance have been developed as well.3 In this contribution, not all of these possible alternatives to liability insurance can be discussed but we will refer to a more detailed discussion of these alternatives in the literature section. However, it seems interesting to generally focus on, on the one hand, the reasons for moving away from liability insurance and, on the other hand, to focus on two particularly interesting alternatives. The latter alternatives have especially been developed in the Netherlands, the Dutch apparently being front-runners in the development of new financial and insurance techniques to cover their Environmental risk. However, a shift towards these alternatives can certainly also be found in other legal systems.