O3 Makes free

ConsultantsOSLO PRINCIPLES: Legal Aspects of Climate Changeby Nijaz Deleut Kemo, Senior Adviser

Preface

There is an increasingly intense debate about Legal Aspects of Climate Change, i.e. many – predominately the most vulnerable - countries are very frustrated about the pace of progress in the international arena; they are even more exploring legal strategies.Part of this debate is about the question: Weather Climate Change is an issue under international law, human rights law and national environmental and to a lesser extent tort law?Ever more leading academics answer this question in the affirmative. This is not to say that the debate is meaningless; a series of procedural obligations come into play. But the latter will be much more affective if substantive obligations are sufficiently clear. By way of example: impact assessments are un-doubtfully useful, but it is quite a challenge to carry them out as long as the legal obligations of the player are up in the clouds. That is not to suggest that they are useless. Even if the legal obligations of a specific enterprise are unknown, it remains possible to determine weather or not it applies “best practices” and/or is energy-efficient to the extent feasible.It can only be hoped that politicians will forego the present lethargy. International agreement(s) would be the best solution if and to the extent they are sufficient to avoid that the fatal threshold will be passed. Until that happens, reliance on other sources or areas of law is unavoidable.

These, Oslo Principles, sure are imperfect when it comes to answering the question: What has to be done by whom and why that is the case? But their ability to form a sound foundation for concrete obligations to avert the dangers of Climate Change should also not be underestimated. Leading academics have pointed to a series of potential obstacles to litigating climate change cases (see e.g. D.A. Kysar, What Climate Change Can Do about Tort Law, on http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/3849 ).

The three most obvious obstacles are, probably are, that: 1. most individual states and enterprises make only minimal contribution to the global threat (that is a causation and a wrongfulness-issue), 2. the “political question argument” (for practical purposes the unwillingness of judges to deal with the matter and their deference to elected officials), and 3. lack of (adequate) obligations or targets set by international conventions or perhaps even national legislation.

These issues and a series of others potential hurdles need to be addressed if a credible picture of the enforceable legal obligations of the respective players is to be provided.

Oslo Experts do believe that the mere setting out of solid footing for the definition of legal obligations of state and enterprises and other actors in the field of Climate Change serve a useful purpose, regardless of weather the obligations defined can be enforced by remedies, such as injunction, issued by courts. They realize, of course, that Oslo Principles are in short-run quite demanding for states and enterprises, and embedded obligations go well beyond international “consensus”, and they are in line with the almost commonly accepted view that we must avoid the passing of the dangerous 2 degree Celsius threshold. When a long-run perspective is taken, it can be tenably argued that the cost of immediate action will be considerably lower than the cost of mitigation and adaptation if we carry on with “business as usual” scenario.

IntroductionIt is beyond cavil that Climate Change grave and irreversible risks to mankind, other living species and nature. A preponderance of scientific evidence and opinion supports that fact; it suggests that the average global temperature should at least not exceed the pre-industrial level (also referred to as the two degrees threshold). There is a limited amount of time, within which measures to avoid passing the 2 degree Celsius threshold can adequately be taken; i.e. there is an urgent need to take these measures. Despite the laudable pledges by leading authorities (Encyclical Letter “Laudato si'”, of the Holy father Francis on care for our common home, May 2015), and politicians (President Barack Obama, Alaska, August 2015) around the globe and a series of urgent calls made by prestigious international organizations (IPCC 5the Report, November 2014), political actions do not keep pace with these promises and calls; they fall short of doing the minimum necessary to avoid that the two degree threshold will be passed.

Many issues remain to be resolved post-Paris (COP21., December 2015). The next few years are crucial in determining wheather Paris was a flesh in the pan or a real shift towards a more effective strategy. I'm optimistic, but success on the road from Paris is far from assured. It must be earned; confidence must be built.

In particularly there is one question that requires answering: What are the respective legal obligations of states and enterprises to reduce their GHG-emissions?

2

Professors Thomas Pogge (Yale University) and Jaap Spier (Maastricht University Faculty of Law) have taken the initiative to convene a group of distinguished experts from various countries and diverging legal backgrounds to explore weather it would be possible to determine the legal obligations of States and enterprises as concretely as possible - the experts came from universities, national and international courts, and organizations located in every region of the world.

The group has accepted the challenge; these Principles are the fruit of its work - based on extensive legal research and discussions over a period of several years, which culminated in a meeting in Oslo, Norway, in 2014.

Thus, group of experts believe that prevention should be our first and foremost focus. If We cannot tame the hydra, catastrophe will set in; catastrophes that can still largely be avoided. So far, most steps taken or considered by governments fall short of what is needed: major reduction of GHG- emissions.Therefore, on 1st of March 2015, a group of experts in international law, human rights law, environmental law, and other law adopted the Oslo Principles on Global Obligations to Reduce Climate Change. So, this immodest proposal can be served as incentive, to explain potentially promising avenues to stem the tide, again.

“Law is bridge between scientific knowledge and political action” by Sultan Azlan Shah (The Millennium: Challenges and Responsibilities, lecture to University Kebangsaan Malaysia, 23rd August 1997).

In Preamble it is stated that “Climate change threatens the well-being of the Earth, and that threats are grave and imminent.”

Yes, indeed, Climate Change has already begun to harm human communities and the environment. Oslo group of legal experts concerned about global climate change and its disastrous effects on the planet and on life, have come together to identify and articulate a set of Principles that comprise the essential obligations States and enterprises have to avert the critical level of global warming. These Oslo Principles, seeking to overcome the generally abstract nature of previous efforts to define the scope of legal obligations relevant to climate change, expressed both: First, the current obligations that all States and enterprises have to defend and protect the Earth’s climate and, thus, its biosphere; and Second, basic means of meeting those obligations. Fulfilling these obligations is necessary and urgent if we are to avoid an unprecedented catastrophe. The obligations set out in Oslo Principles derived from broad fundamental principles and a wide range of well-established law.

The biosphere, all forms of life within it and the ecological processes that maintain all living organisms are part of the common heritage of humanity.Human beings, because of their unique nature and capacities, have an essential duty as guardians and trustees of the Earth to preserve, protect and sustain the biosphere and the full diversity of life within it. Avoiding severe global catastrophe is a moral and a legal imperative. To the extent that human activity endangers the biosphere, particularly through the effects of human activity on the global climate, all States and enterprises have an immediate moral and legal duty to prevent the deleterious effects of climate change. While all people, individually and through all the varieties of associations that they form, share the moral duty to avert climate change, the critical legal responsibility rests with States and enterprises. According to the view of the overwhelming majority of leading scientists and other experts, climate change poses serious risks to both present and future generations of humankind, to other living species and to the biosphere. Climate change further endangers social and economic progress, international peace and security, and equity and justice among human beings and States. Communities and segments of the population already in the most vulnerable circumstances will tend to suffer the effects of climate change most acutely.

3

Prevailing international scientific opinion recognizes that a two-degree Celsius increase in the Earth’s mean global surface temperature over the pre-industrial level will have a profound, adverse and irreversible impact on human and other life and on the Earth. The even greater increase toward which the climate is currently moving would cause significantly greater damage. Human activity is already causing grave and potentially catastrophic changes in the climate.

The rate of global climate change is widely understood to put humanity at a tipping point that requires urgent action to avert disaster. While a small minority of opinion is critical of the consensus, the power of prevailing scientific opinion requires action as set forth in Oslo Principles.

All principles, laws, policies and practices, whether local, national or international, that may affect the environment and, in particular, the global climate must be based on scientific evidence. As this evidence is constantly evolving and improving, lawmakers, policymakers and tribunals have a duty to inform themselves of and base their actions – in good faith and respecting justice and equity – on prevailing scientific knowledge and opinion.

If necessary, in order to respect the Precautionary Principle (Principle No. 1. below), such decision makers must take into account, and take action to avoid, any credible and realistic worst-case scenario accepted by a substantial number of eminent climate change experts. International law entails obligations to act cooperatively to protect and advance fundamental human rights, including in the context of climate change and its effects on people’s ability to exercise such rights. Threatened human rights include, but are not limited to, the right to life, the rights to health, water, food, a clean environment, and other social, economic and cultural rights, and the rights of children, women, minorities and indigenous peoples. International law recognizes that each State is legally responsible for the deleterious trans-border effects that human activities in its territory have on other States. The grave and universal nature of threat from Climate Change to the Earth affirms the basic principle of human solidarity and requires all States and individuals to act, in regard to decisions affecting the climate, with urgency and respect for justice and equity and to negotiate in good faith to achieve agreements that, taken together, would prevent the critical two-degree Celsius increase in global temperature. If global emissions contributing to climate change continue to increase, or if the required reductions, as set out in these Principles, fail to prevent a two-degree Celsius temperature increase, States and enterprises must reduce GHG-emissions further.“(...) We have built up for ourselves and our fellow creatures environmental problems for an unprecedented scale and complexity. One cause for hope is that unlike those other civilizations We have the understanding or the means of understanding what is happening, and what We could do about it. On the science there is a remarkable degree of consensus. The problem is to translate that understanding into political action. Here above all We may find ourselves looking to the law to provide a bridge, and to the judges to offer at least some of the building blocks” by Lord Carnwath (Environmental law in global society, lecture given at Kuala Lumpur on 9th October 2014).Therefore, the Oslo Principles set out the legal obligations of States and enterprises to take the urgent measures necessary to avert climate change and its catastrophic effects. They do not claim to address all action that humanity will need to take to respond to the dangers Climate Change poses to human life and the biosphere. So, please see Annex I.

Additional crucial initiatives include:a). action by international, national and local actors to adapt to inevitable climate-change effects in ways that minimize harm to human and other forms of life and to the exercise of human rights;

4

b). transparency in the conduct of all actors with responsibility to implement these Principles; c). widespread education initiatives to ensure that humanity, in general, and all people making relevant decisions, including legislative and judicial decisions, understand the urgency of action to avert climate change; and d). guarantees of public access to information about the climate effects of policies, projects and practices, public participation in relevant decision-making, and the establishment of appropriate institutions to coordinate and implement efforts to reduce Climate Change.

No single source of law alone requires states and enterprises to fulfill Oslo Principles. Rather, a network of intersecting sources provides states and enterprises with obligations to respond urgently and effectively to climate change in a manner that respects, protects, and fulfills the basic dignity and human rights of the world’s people and the safety and integrity of biosphere. These sources are local, national, regional, and international and derive from diverse substantive canons, including, inter alia, international human rights law, environmental law and tort law. Under well-established principles of international law, states are entitled to a degree of discretion in the means they choose to fulfill their obligations under Oslo Principles.

General Principle, No. 1., is Precautionary Principle. There is clear and convincing evidence that the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions produced by human activity are causing significant changes to the climate and that these changes pose grave risks of irreversible harm to humanity, including present and future generations, to the environment, including other living species and the entire natural habitat, and to the global economy. The Precautionary Principle requires that: First, GHG-emissions be reduced to the extent and at a pace necessary to protect against the threats of climate change that can still be avoided; and Second, that the level of reductions of GHG-emissions required to achieve this, should be based on any credible and realistic worst-case scenario accepted by a substantial number of eminent climate change experts. The measures required by the Precautionary Principle should be adopted without regard to the cost, unless that cost is completely disproportionate to the reduction in emissions that will be brought about by expending it.

Specific Obligations are: Principle No. 6., stipulated that, under chapter A. States and enterprises must take measures, based on Principle No. 1., to ensure that the global average surface temperature increase never exceeds pre-industrial temperature by more than 2 degrees Celsius.aa. The extent of the measures legally required must be determined in light of the Precautionary Principle, defined in Principle No. 1. bb. The permissible quantum of GHG-emissions that a State or enterprise may produce in a specific year must be determined in accordance with No. 1. Principle.Principle No. 7., stipulated that all States and enterprises must reduce their GHG-emissions to the extent that they can achieve such reduction without relevant additional cost. Relevant measures include: - switching off power-consuming equipment when not in use; - eliminating excessive power consumption where possible, including for heating, cooling and lighting; - promoting, to the maximum extent possible, measures that will reduce the need for consuming energy, such as improved insulation of buildings and improved efficiency of energy-consuming devices; - elimination of broad fossil-fuel subsidies, including tax exemptions for certain industries, such as air transportation.Principle No. 8., stipulated that State and enterprises must refrain from starting new activities that cause excessive GHG emissions, including, for example, erecting or expanding coal-fired power plants, without taking countervailing measures, unless the relevant activities can be shown to be indispensable in light of prevailing circumstances, as might be the case, in particular, in the least developed countries.

5

If the new activities are shown to be indispensable, a least developed country is obligated to opt for less GHG-emitting new activities only if and to the extent that developed countries or other entities provide the relevant least developed country with the additional means to meet this obligation.Principle No. 9., stipulated that developed and developing countries, as well as enterprises, must take available GHG-reduction measures that entail costs if the costs will be offset through future savings or financial gains. Least developed countries and local enterprises in least developed countries have the same obligation to the extent that other entities provide the financial and technical means required without imposing more than a minimal financial burden on the relevant least developed countries or enterprises. Any entity to which an obligation in these Principles applies has flexibility in selecting the measures it uses to meet this obligation, if the measures chosen, in their totality, achieve the legally required result, as described in Oslo Principles. No country or enterprises is relieved of its obligations under Oslo Principles even if its contributions to total GHG-emissions are small. States and enterprises must comply with the obligations set out in Oslo Principles even if relevant national law or international agreements, whether existing or later promulgated, set lower standards and, thus, would result in less reduction of GHG-emissions.

B. Obligations of States are:In Principle 13., that Every above -permissible-quantum country is required to reduce the GHG-emissions within its jurisdiction or control to the permissible quantum within the shortest time feasible. This obligation in no way diminishes the obligations set out under Principles 7, 8 and 9. The obligations of States are common but differentiated. Least developed countries do not have a legal obligation to reduce GHG-emissions at their own expense. They are subject only to the duties set out in Principles 7, 8, and 9. Principle 16., stipulated that a country with GHG-emissions close to the permissible quantum is not obligated to reduce its emissions to the permissible quantum if and to the extent that doing so would create undue hardship, considering, in particular, the country’s historical GHG contributions, its capabilities in terms of its wealth, its needs, its dependence on fossil fuel, and its access to renewable energy. Because the permissible quantum will decrease as time progresses, a below-permissible quantum country producing emissions close to the permissible quantum should refrain from increasing the level of its GHG-emissions, unless so refraining would cause undue hardship. If and to the extent that an above-permissible-quantum country has taken all steps reasonably available but nevertheless has failed to fulfill the obligations that country must provide financial or technical means to below permissible-quantum countries to achieve the reduction of GHG-emissions that the responsible above-permissible-quantum country has failed to achieve. The receiving country must use these means for GHG reduction purposes. Both countries have a joint responsibility to ensure that the support provided, whether financial or technical, is not used for other purposes, although such support may provide benefits in addition to GHG reduction. On the request of a State that has provided technical or financial means to another State to achieve GHG reductions, the receiving State must provide information to allow the supporting State to determine whether the support was used to achieve the intended purpose. Reductions brought about through such financial or technical support shall count as reductions for the State that has provided the financial or technical means and not as reductions for the receiving state.

The global reduction of GHG-emissions required to ensure that the global average surface temperature increase never exceeds pre-industrial temperatures by more than 2 degrees Celsius, according to estimates based on the Precautionary Principle, may be impossible to achieve without additional reductions by above-permissible-quantum countries. If that is the case, those countries must to the extent reasonably possible:

6

a). reduce their emissions enough to ensure the global average temperature increase does not exceed the stated level, andb). if such additional contributions do not suffice to meet the obligation, below permissible-quantum countries must reduce their emissions to the extent necessary to achieve that result. Unless such a country is a developed country, this obligation applies only if and to the extent that developed above-permissible-quantum countries or other entities provide the relevant country with the means to meet this obligation. Principle 21., stipulated that States must make their best efforts to bring about lawful and appropriate trade consequences for States that fail to comply with the obligations set out in Oslo Principles, and shall refrain from providing new subsidies, aid, credits, grants, guarantees, or insurance for installation of major new facilities or major expansion of existing facilities that will result in the emission of unnecessarily high or, in the given circumstances, unsustainable quantities of GHG, either within or outside their territories. For a least developed country, there may be an exception to this requirement if choosing more efficient facilities would be unduly burdensome for that country. A State that fails or is responsibly likely to fail to meet its obligations shall, without prejudice to the imposition of possible consequences for such failure or impending failure, initiate or support research designed to identify and develop means to reduce GHG-emissions. Also, Principle 23. stipulated, that Neither high cost nor the lack of financial means can, alone, excuse a State’s failure to meet its obligations to achieve GHG reductions or constitute a defense against legal sanctions that may be imposed as a consequence of such a failure. To avoid such sanctions, a State must show excessive hardship or extraordinary circumstances beyond the State’s control that have prevented the State from meeting its obligations. States must regulate GHG-emissions in their jurisdictions or under their control to meet their obligations set forth in these Principles.

C. Procedural Obligations of States are:States must accept the jurisdiction of independent courts or tribunals in which the State’s compliance with its obligations as set forth in Oslo Principles can be challenged and adjudicated. They must participate in these proceedings in good faith and ensure that such proceedings are fair and efficient, and, in such proceedings, the State whose compliance with its obligations has been challenged must fully disclose the ways in which it has effected compliance in order to enable the court or tribunal to determine whether the State has complied with the relevant obligations and, where it is found the State has not complied, to determine the extent and nature of the State’s failure to comply.

Each State must make available information that is necessary to enable persons within its territories to assess the risks to their lives and health that climate change poses.

7

D. Obligations of Enterprises are:Enterprises must assess their facilities and property to evaluate their vulnerability to climate change; the financial effect that future climate change will have on the enterprises; and the enterprises’ efforts to increase their resilience to future climate change. Enterprises must publicly disclose this information and ensure, in particular, that it is readily accessible to those who are or are likely to be directly or indirectly affected by their activities, including investors, clients, and securities regulators. An enterprises whose activity includes fossil-fuel production must assess the impact that any limitations imposed on future extraction or use of fossil fuels, consistent with the “carbon budget” concept enunciated by the IPCC and others, will have on its financial situation. The enterprise must disclose this information to investors, securities regulators and the public. Before building any major new facilities, enterprises must conduct environmental impact assessments. Such an assessment must include an analysis of the proposed facility’s carbon footprint and ways to reduce it and the potential effects of future climate change on the proposed facility.Enterprises in the banking and finance sectors should take into account the GHG effects of any projects they consider financing.

So, it follows that it is hardly possible to determine the legal impact of GHG-emissions in the past – unable to glean more specific legal principles and rules from the law, including international instruments, case law or well established legal concepts. The per capita-approach does not yet answer the question how to allocate the reduction-burden among countries but it lays the basis for making such a determination.

Although, Oslo Principles, do not find a clear legal basis for greater protection to countries that have made small historical contribution to global emissions Principles 16, and also 9, 21 and 23 provide some flexibility to reach fair and equitable results in concrete cases, nevertheless, it welcomed any attempts by international treaties to further restrict the obligations of these countries – such restrictions should be allowed only by concomitant increases in obligation of others.

For more, please see ANNEX I.

8

Instead of conclusions

The climate is a common good, belonging to all and meant for all. At the global level, it is a complex system linked to many of the essential conditions for human life. Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption, in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it.It is true that there are other factors, such as: volcanic activity, variations in the earth's orbit and axis, the solar cycle; yet a number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming (GW) in recent decades is due to the great concentration of GHGs (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and others) released mainly as a result of human activity. Climate change is a global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods.

It represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our days. Its worst impact will probably be felt by developing countries in coming decades. Many of the poor live in areas particularly affected by phenomena related to warming, and their means of subsistence are largely dependent on natural reserves and eco-systemic services such as agriculture, fishing and forestry. They have no other financial activities or resources which can enable them to adopt to climate change or to face natural disasters, and their access to social services and protection is very limited. For example, changes in climate, to which animals and plants cannot adopt, lead them to migrate; this in turn affects the livelihood of the poor, who are then forced to leave their homes, with great uncertainty for their future and that of their children.

There has been a tragic rise in the number of migrants seeking to flee from the growing poverty caused by environmental degradation. They are not recognized by international conventions as refugees; they bear the loss of the lives they have left behind, without enjoying any legal protection whatsoever. Sadly, there is widespread indifference to such suffering, which is even now taking place throughout our world. Our lack of response to these tragedies point to the loss of that sense of responsibility for common good upon which all civil society is founded. E.g. past year in the European Union (EU).The human environment and the natural environment deteriorate together; so we cannot adequately combat environmental unless we attend to cause related to human and social degradation. Never have we so hurt and mistreated our common home as we have in the last 200 (two) hundred years. The problem is that we still lack the culture needed to confront this crisis. We lack leadership capable of striking out on new paths and meeting the needs of the present with concern for all and without prejudice towards coming generations.The current global situation engenders a feeling of instability and uncertainty, which in turn becomes “a seedbed for collective selfishness.” When people become self-enclosed and self-centered, their greed increases. The emptier a person's heart is, the more he or she needs things to buy, own and consume; i.e. work, eat, drink, sleep and enjoy in life. It becomes almost impossible to accept the limits imposed by reality. In this horizon, a genuine sense of the common good also disappears. As these attitudes become more widespread, social norms are respected only to the extent that they do not clash with personal needs. So our concern cannot be limited merely to the threat of extreme weather events, but must also extend to the catastrophic consequences of social unrest. Obsession with a consumerist lifestyle, above all when few people are capable of maintaining it, can only lead to violence and mutual destruction.

Yet all is not lost. Homosap beings, while capable of the worst, are also capable of rising above themselves, choosing again what is good, and making a new start, despite their mental and social conditioning.

9

We are able, I do believe, to take an honest look at ourselves, to acknowledge our deep dissatisfaction, and to embark on new path to authentic freedom.“(...) No system can completely suppress our openness to what is good, true and beautiful, or our God-given ability to respond to his grace at work deep in our hearts. I appeal to everyone throughout the world not to forget this dignitywhich is ours. No one has the right to take it from us,“ emphasized by Holy father Francis in “Laudato si'.”

Underlining the principle of the common good (the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively through and ready access to their own fulfillment) is respect for the human person as such, endowed with basic and inalienable rights ordered to his or her integral development.

Finally, the common good calls for social peace, the stability and secure provided by a certain order which cannot be achieved without particular concern for distributive justice; whenever this is violated, violence always ensues. Society as a whole, and the state in particular, are obliged to define and promote the common good.

In the present condition of global society, where injustice abound and growing number of people are deprived of basic human rights and considered expendable, the principle of the common good immediately becomes, logically and inevitably, a summons to solidarity and a preferential option for the poorest. What we need is only to take a look around us and see that this option is in fact an ethical imperative for effectively attaining common good. In my view, too, States are legally obliged to reduce their GHG-emissions, even if they not conclude (further) international agreements or conventions.

That would be a giant step forward if the COP in Paris, later this year, would result in any concrete agreement on reduction of GHG-emissions and if that agreement would be ratified by countries around the globe.

So far, the legal debate about legal duties to mitigate Climate Change has taken place in the following areas: human rights, international, constitutional, environmental and to a lesser extent tort law (n. breach of a duty imposed by law, making offender liable to action for damages).

A sound legal underpinning, based on international law would obviously entail many advantages; it “applies” world-wide or at least in major regions, it has – at least on paper – a higher status than national law and it may be easier to enforce at least in theory. International law – encompassing human rights law – provides a rather strong basis for the submission that steps must be taken to avoid the passing of the total threshold: Principles 6 and 13, unfortunately,does not provides sufficiently precise guidance as to the concrete obligations of individual countries. To achieve that, reliance on other areas of law is necessary.In my view, too, only an amalgamation of legal sources can provide a sufficiently sound underpinning for our principles; international law, case law and doctrine from these sources reinforce one another.

Oslo Principles cannot be supported with reference to judicial precedents, although that may be problematic in countries that are heavily dependent on judicial precedents. But even in these countries, the law has developed over time and judges have been creative to map ways to meet other urgent demands of society.One can still make use of established legal principles and concepts. Oslo Principles are aimed at contributing towards the establishment of precedents on the basis of doctrine and principles. If We were wait for judicial precedents we will be to late, indeed.

10

ANNEX I

APPLE UNVEILS LIAM, the iPHONE RCYCLING ROBOT by Adam JUSTICE, March 22, 2016.

Apple has unveiled a robotic system called Liam to take apart iPhones and recover valuable materials that can be recycled, such as silver and tungsten. The move is an attempt to address criticism that Apple's products while sleek and seamless in design, are so tightly constructed that their components can be difficult to disassembled, refurbish and reuse. Liam, which has been under development for nearly three years, will initially focus on the iPhone 6 Apple plans to modify and expand the system to handle different devices and recover more resources, the company said. The system standard to operate a full capacity in February and can take apart one iPhone 6 every 11 seconds to recover aluminum, copper, tin, cobalt, gold, tungsten and silver parts, according Apple. At the rate and working uninterrupted, Liam likely can handle n more than a few million phones per year, a small fraction of the more than 231 million phones Apple sold in 2015.Lisa JACKSON, Apple's vice president of environment policy and social initiatives, said the robotic system is meant to push the technology sector toward more recycling, both by manufacturers and consumers. As research continues on long-scale recycling, Jackson, who was U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator from 2009-2013, said Apple hopes to reuse more materials in future products.“Ultimately, our goal is to create breakthroughs that allow us to use those high quality materials in our own products, because reuse and recycling is so important. Ant that's where you can come in. With Apple Renew, you can recycle your devices easily and quickly and in a way that's safe for your data and safe for the planet. All you have to do is take them into an Apple retail store” - Jackson told the audience at a launch event held at Apple's Cupertino, California Headquarters.

The recycling system consist of 29 robotic modules on a single site. It will focus initially on iPhone 6 phones sold in U.S., where Apple gets about 40% of its revenue. A second Liam is being installed in Europe. The world is awash in discarded electronic equipment with the U.S. and China accounting for 1/3 of it. Apple does not disclose how many of its devices are turned in for recycling every year. Under its existing program, the company offers customers store credit for recycling certain devices and will recycle old products for free.

11

Examples of good practice, therefore, that can be applied at broader scales can also analyses of policy options and effectiveness. Obtaining relevant information from all actors involved will require cooperation across different sectors and between private and public enterprises and organizations.

I.e., an example of reuse being integrated into the business model of companies in the Aircraft Fleet Recycling Association (AFRA), a not-for-profit association originally formed by 11 airlines to present a perspective on aircraft sustainability by development best practice and technologies for the management of the world's older fleet. The organization has published a best-management-practice auditable standard and provides training for its 28 accredited members.In 2013, 470 planes were disassembled, returning more than 6 000 tonnes of components to service. In 2014, the value of parts recovered and reintroduced to the market amounted to USD 3,2 billion.Other project, including PAMELA (Process for Advanced Management of End of Life of Aircraft), which is co-funded by the EU, also aim to demonstrate that an aircraft can be dismantled safely and its components prepared for reuse in aviation or other sectors.

Next is Houdini Sportswear AB, Sweden, designs long-lasting products and also offers repair services, rental of outer garments and own-brand second-hand clothes at its shops. The company started to use recycled polyester fibres in its products and reached a proportion of 58% recycled materials in items sold in 2012/2013. At the same time, it is partnering with other outdoor garment producers to phase out persistent, toxic and bio-accumulative per- end poly-fluorinated chemicals.

PUMA, another sportswear corporation, designed Clever Little Bag packaging for its shoes. This reduced car board use by about 65% and is saving 20 million megajoules of electricity, 0,5 million liters of diesel and 1 million liters of water per year – and the bags can be reused (Daily Telegraph, 2010):

In 2010, Xerox, a producer of copying machines, ventured into the managed service sector by enabling customers to lease printing and copying machines, paying per print or copy made, with maintenance costs included in the cost per click. The managed print services business model has been so successful that, by 2011, it account for nearly 50% of the Company's revenue (Xerox, 2015).

Peerby is an on-line platform that matches people in temporary need for a specific object with those who have the object and are willing to lend it, free of fees. From is inception in 2011, Peerby has enabled 300 000 l3nding and borrowing transactions between its 100 000 members, leading to a net decrease in the need for new products (Financial Times, 2014).

Operating with a similar C2C business model, the originally Dutch platform Thuisafgehaald (Shareyourmeal) makes it possible for people to share spare homemade food. So far, the meal-sharing website has enabled people in eight (8) European countries to share around 133 000 meals, reducing food waste and strengthening social ties between neighbors.

At the end, looked at one way, Paris Accord - for all the hoopla - is at this point far from a serious scheme for deep international cooperation. The question is how nations will actually know what others are doing. Agreement enters into force if a minimum of 55 countries accounts for 55% of world emissions ratify the accord – a far lower threshold than the most other international treaties. Pledge-and-review is a long overdue way to get started with cooperation – linking together the different national efforts into a more integrated, collaborative set of international agreements. Most of the details for how that will be done were deferred in Paris, and fleshing out a system for transparency is one reason why the “after Paris” process will be more important than the Paris meeting itself. In fact, the agreement should be seen as a down payment on a system that is designed to come into force rapidly, and that's the best that can be hoped for right now.

12

O3 Macht frei

Consultants

Done in Novi Vinodolski, March 31, 2016., C R O A T I A