DOCSLIB.ORG

CLIMATE JUSTICE: the International Momentum Towards Climate Litigation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CLIMATE JUSTICE: the International Momentum Towards Climate Litigation CLIMATE JUSTICE: The international momentum towards climate litigation Keely Boom, Julie-Anne Richards and Stephen Leonard CLIMATE JUSTICE: The international momentum towards climate litigation Keely Boom, Julie-Anne Richards and Stephen Leonard 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Paris Agreement is ground breaking yet contradictory. In an era of fractured multilateralism it achieved above and beyond what was considered politically possible – yet it stopped far short of what is necessary to stop dangerous climate change. In the Paris Agreement, countries agreed to pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5C, yet the mitigation pledges on the table at Paris will result in roughly 3C of warming, with insufficient finance to implement those pledges. The Paris Agreement was widely acknowledged to signal the end of the fossil fuel era, yet it does not explicitly use the words ‘fossil fuels’ throughout the entire document, nor does it contain any binding requirements that governments commit to any concrete climate recovery steps. Now, citizens and governments are beginning to seek redress in court with ground breaking cases emerging around the world, in a whole new area of litigation, some of which can be compared with the beginnings of - and based on some of the legal precedents set by - legal action against the tobacco industry. Other new strategies are focused not only on private industry but on the sovereign responsibility of governments to preserve constitutional and public trust rights to a stable climate and healthy atmosphere on behalf of both present and future generations. Climate litigation has spread beyond the US into new jurisdictions throughout Asia, the Pacific and Europe. Claimants are not only targeting the ‘Carbon Majors’, who are the world’s largest producers of oil, coal and gas, but are also targeting the governments around the world that are continuing to support and collude with the Carbon Majors by promoting, subsidising and approving a fossil-fuel based energy system, with the full knowledge of the catastrophic impacts of climate destabilization and ocean acidification that would result from continuing to burn fossil fuels. The Carbon Majors are responsible for two- thirds of the human-made carbon emissions in the atmosphere today. These corporations have made outrageous profits while outsourcing the true cost of their product upon the poor who are paying with their homes, ability to grow food and with their lives, as they begin to deal with the impacts that 1C of warming are wreaking on them. In addition, governments have allowed and encouraged this crisis to transpire, in many instances in violation of citizens’ fundamental rights. In response to this travesty, the Philippines human rights commission is investigating fossil fuel corporations for their role in the human rights impacts of climate change. A Peruvian farmer is seeking $21,000 in damages from German utility company RWE in German courts. State governments within the US are investigating fossil fuel corporations for allegedly lying to the public and investors over climate change. Efforts by individuals seeking damages from fossil fuel corporations are likely to increase over time, and will foreseeably be transnational in nature (i.e. plaintiffs may come from anywhere in the world and bring their cases in a wide range of jurisdictions). At the same time, citizens, including children, are increasingly bringing climate litigation against their governments and are achieving successes. A Dutch court decided in the Urgenda case that the Dutch Government was not doing enough to address climate change, and ordered it to do more. A Pakistani judge has declared the government’s inaction on climate change offends the fundamental rights of its citizens, including constitutional and human rights. Youth in the US, supported by Our Children’s Trust, are seeking science-based CO2 emission reductions from their governments based on constitutional and public trust rights and have had major recent victories in Washington, New Mexico, and in a federal lawsuit (where they have survived motions to dismiss brought by the US government as defendant and massive fossil fuel industry trade groups as intervenor-defendants). A young Pakistani girl and other youth around the globe, also working with Our Children’s Trust, are seeking to replicate this sort of constitutional, intergenerational, public trust litigation within their countries. In addition, 2 the first immigration cases have been brought by citizens of Pacific Island nations seeking to migrate to New Zealand. One claimant was successful in securing an immigration permit based upon humanitarian grounds. Rich, polluting countries have deliberately avoided the topic of liability and compensation for climate damages. Yet governments need to avoid repeating the disastrous history of asbestos litigation where the claims have crippled judicial systems at a time when the original defendants have ceased to exist or removed assets from the jurisdiction. Governments need to be held to their own affirmative fiduciary and constitutional responsibilities to their citizens to protect essential natural resources for the benefit of all present and future generations, and to pursue liability for fossil fuel corporations, starting with investigations recently launched in the Philippines and the US (as identified above). The importance of such efforts by governments could be explicitly recognised and actively encouraged in the international climate regime, just as it is in the international tobacco regime. Without this shift to judicial recognition and enforcement of sovereign governmental obligations to protect shared natural resources, including a healthy atmosphere, ocean and climate system, in accordance with the best available science, as well as private liability, legislative and executive action on the global domestic and international levels will remain as ineffective in the future as it has been in the past. We recommend that governments: 1. Remove the fossil fuel industry from the climate negotiations process and ban the industry from having a role or voice in setting climate change policy. 2. Acknowledge and discharge governments’ affirmative sovereign obligations to preserve essential natural resources, including a healthy atmosphere, ocean and climate system, in accordance with the best available science, for the benefit of all present and future generations, with comprehensive plans for emission reductions and protection and restoration of natural ecosystems. 3. As well as making appropriate contributions in their own right (public climate finance), introduce a levy on fossil fuel producers to partly fund the International Mechanism for Loss and Damage, allowing for individuals and communities to directly access the funds made available through this process. 4. Remove fossil fuel subsidies and couple this action with the carbon levy to ensure that governments recuperate the true and complete costs of climate change from industry. 5. Introduce into international climate law a provision that recognises the role of private sector liability and encourages governments to take legislative action and legal actions under existing laws to deal with potential criminal and civil liability of the fossil fuel industry. 6. Take legal action against the fossil fuel industry within national jurisdictions to establish liability, recuperate the costs of climate change and expose internal industry documents. 7. Consider amending limitation periods if necessary to allow claimants to bring cases from the time that climate damages manifest. 8. Implement strategies to ensure fossil fuel defendants do not take action to avoid liability (e.g. through shifting assets to alternative jurisdictions or splitting up their companies). 9. Introduce legislation that specifically addresses climate liability if there is a need for clarification of the law or a need to change the law to make climate litigation feasible. 3 0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 5 1 The Paris Agreement ..................................................................................................................... 6 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................ 6 1.2 Towards climate justice ........................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Loss and damage .................................................................................................................... 8 1.4 Loss and damage and the Paris Climate Agreement ............................................................... 9 1.5 Does the Paris Agreement exclude liability and compensation? ........................................... 12 2 Climate litigation ......................................................................................................................... 14 2.1 Background .......................................................................................................................... 14 2.2 Legal actions against companies ........................................................................................... 17 2.2.1 Philippines: Human rights complaint against Carbon Majors .......................................... 17 2.2.2 Germany: Peruvian farmer’s transnational case against RWE .........................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Climate Justice
    Ed Maurer & Chad Raphael CLIMATE JUSTICE 1 Fostering community-driven research for social and environmental justice www.scu.edu/ej community-driven research for ● Environmental Justice ● Climate Justice ● Example Research Project - Nicaragua ● Discuss Just Transition Principles and Strategies ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (EJ) Civil Rights Farmworkers Indigenous Anti-Toxics Rights of all people to healthy and livable communities, now and in the future community- driven community- community- community- researchUrban for Public Occ. Safety & Anti- driven driven driven Planning Health Health Colonialism research for research for research for community-driven research for community- community- driven driven research for research for community- driven research for ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (EJ) The environment is everywhere we live, work, play, and pray community-driven research for ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (EJ) Fair distribution of environmental burdens and benefits ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (EJ) Full recognition of individual dignity and group rights, including equitable protection against environmental harms through law, regulation, and enforcement ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (EJ) Meaningful participation in environmental decision making by all who are affected, including historically excluded groups, and consideration of future generations CLIMATE JUSTICE Paris Climate Accord (2015) Reparations from largest GHG emitters to most vulnerable communities for climate adaptation and mitigation CLIMATE JUSTICE Participation and self-determination by vulnerable and excluded
    [Show full text]
  • CES Working Paper 07/00 RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES
    CES Working Paper 07/00 RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES Author: Tim Jackson ISSN: 1464-8083 RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES Tim Jackson ISSN: 1464-8083 Published by: Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey, Guildford (Surrey) GU2 7XH, United Kingdom http://www.surrey.ac.uk/CES Publication date: 2000 © Centre for Environmental Strategy, 2007 The views expressed in this document are those of the authors and not of the Centre for Environmental Strategy. Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the authors and the publishers cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials. This publication and its contents may be reproduced as long as the reference source is cited. ROYAL COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION STUDY ON ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT Paper prepared as background to the Study Renewable Energy Sources March 1998 Dr Tim Jackson* and Dr Ragnar Löfstedt Centre for Environmental Strategy University of Surrey Guildford Surrey GU2 5XH E-mail: [email protected] The views expressed in the paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the thinking of the Royal Commission. Any queries about the paper should be directed to the author indicated * above. Whilst every reasonable effort has been made to ensure accurate transposition of the written reports onto the website, the Royal Commission cannot be held responsible for any accidental errors which might have been introduced during the transcription. Table of Contents Summary 1 Introduction 2 Renewable Energy Technologies
    [Show full text]
  • Who Pays? Consumer Attitudes to the Growth of Levies to Fund Environmental and Social Energy Policy Objectives Prashant Vaze and Chris Hewett About Consumer Focus
    Who Pays? Consumer attitudes to the growth of levies to fund environmental and social energy policy objectives Prashant Vaze and Chris Hewett About Consumer Focus Consumer Focus is the statutory Following the recent consumer and consumer champion for England, Wales, competition reforms, the Government Scotland and (for postal consumers) has asked Consumer Focus to establish Northern Ireland. a new Regulated Industries Unit by April 2013 to represent consumers’ interests in We operate across the whole of the complex, regulated markets sectors. The economy, persuading businesses, Citizens Advice service will take on our public services and policy-makers to role in other markets from April 2013. put consumers at the heart of what they do. We tackle the issues that matter to Our Annual Plan for 2012/13 is available consumers, and give people a stronger online, consumerfocus.org.uk voice. We don’t just draw attention to problems – we work with consumers and with a range of organisations to champion creative solutions that make a difference to consumers’ lives. For regular updates from Consumer Focus, sign up to our monthly e-newsletter by emailing [email protected] or follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/consumerfocus Consumer Focus Contents Executive summary .................................................................................................... 4 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 8 Background ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 350 Madison Statement on Climate Justice
    350 Madison Statement on Climate Justice Adopted by Board of Directors on September 9, 2020 350 Madison believes that climate justice is not possible without racial justice, and we are inspired by the work of activists striving for racial justice. We stand in solidarity with the #Black Lives Matter movement, those working to achieve justice for people of color, and those demanding action to confront the forces that have allowed systemic racism to persist. While all members of our society are endangered and harmed by climate change and its impacts, such as polluted water and air, wildfires, floods, new diseases, and extreme weather, people of color suffer disproportionately, largely due to systemic racism. In a recent interview, Bill McKibben, 350.Org’s founder, explained the connection between climate change and climate justice using the three words “I can’t breathe”. ● “I can’t breathe” - the last words of George Floyd and Eric Garner, show the brutality of the police and the racial oppression and injustice in our society. Communities can’t breathe because they are stifled by police brutality. ● “I can’t breathe” - Coal plants and other fossil fuel facilities are disproportionately located in minority communities, making the air toxic to breathe. Air pollution from these plants has led to asthma rates three times higher among Black people than among the general population. ● “I can’t breathe”- It's gotten so hot in some places, that communities literally can’t breathe .The temperature hit 114 degrees in New Delhi recently. Imagine being confined to a house due to COVID-19 with no air conditioning in that heat! It is unjust for so many people of color around the world to suffer the disproportionate impacts of climate change, and to breathe, drink and eat the toxic byproducts of the fossil fuel industry, while facing discrimination in housing, employment, schools and law enforcement.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pathway to a Green New Deal: Synthesizing Transdisciplinary Literatures and Activist Frameworks to Achieve a Just Energy Transition
    The Pathway to a Green New Deal: Synthesizing Transdisciplinary Literatures and Activist Frameworks to Achieve a Just Energy Transition Shalanda H. Baker and Andrew Kinde The “Green New Deal” resolution introduced into Congress by Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Senator Ed Markey in February 2019 articulated a vision of a “just” transition away from fossil fuels. That vision involves reckoning with the injustices of the current, fossil-fuel based energy system while also creating a clean energy system that ensures that all people, especially the most vulnerable, have access to jobs, healthcare, and other life-sustaining supports. As debates over the resolution ensued, the question of how lawmakers might move from vision to implementation emerged. Energy justice is a discursive phenomenon that spans the social science and legal literatures, as well as a set of emerging activist frameworks and practices that comprise a larger movement for a just energy transition. These three discourses—social science, law, and practice—remain largely siloed and insular, without substantial cross-pollination or cross-fertilization. This disconnect threatens to scuttle the overall effort for an energy transition deeply rooted in notions of equity, fairness, and racial justice. This Article makes a novel intervention in the energy transition discourse. This Article attempts to harmonize the three discourses of energy justice to provide a coherent framework for social scientists, legal scholars, and practitioners engaged in the praxis of energy justice. We introduce a framework, rooted in the theoretical principles of the interdisciplinary field of energy justice and within a synthesized framework of praxis, to assist lawmakers with the implementation of Last updated December 12, 2020 Professor of Law, Public Policy and Urban Affairs, Northeastern University.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Policy and Biomass
    National Renewable Energy Laboratory Global (International) Energy Policy and Biomass Ralph P. Overend National Renewable Energy Laboratory California Biomass Collaboration – First Annual Forum January 8th , 2004 Sacramento, CA. NREL/PR-510-35561 Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by Midwest Research Institute • Battelle • Bechtel Understanding Policy • Policies are applied against uncertain futures! • Can be – EXPLICIT as in having an “Energy Policy” •OR – IMPLICIT derived from the sum total of previous actions • Biomass Specific Policy – At the Intersection of several policies and jurisdictions • Energy • Environment • Land Use – Agriculture – Forestry – Rural Development • Urban •ZEN Rules – not having an Explicit policy can still be an Energy Policy! – However well meaning a policy – there is a law of unintended consequences World TPES 2000 (Total Primary Energy Supply = 448 EJ) • Food TPES – 2700 Cal/person/day 6% 2% – Popn. 6.1 Billion 6% • Source for Food TPES 35% –FAO.org 10% • Nuclear conversion – kWh = 10.8 MJ • Hydro conversion 19% –kWh = 3.6 MJ • source for fuel TPES (9700 22% Mtoe) – Iea.org Oil Coal N.Gas Biomass Food Nuclear Hydro Business as Usual - World Energy according to IEA WEO2002 • 2030 time horizon • TPES grows at 1.7%/a from 9179 – 15267 Mtoe – No shortage of traditional fossil fuel resources (see next slide) – Requires considerable investment > 17 T$ (2002) • About 1% of global GDP • 50% goes for infrastructure replacement • Electricity system needs about 10 T$ (50% in T&D) • Oil and Gas each about 3
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Justice
    PROMPT 2: CLIMATE JUSTICE How can next-generation technology help reduce the unequal impacts of climate change on Black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC), children, aging populations, people with disabilities, women, immigrants, and those with low incomes? In other words, how can we leverage leading-edge technology to advance climate justice? Prompt Overview The United Nations states that “the impacts of climate change will not be borne equally or fairly, between rich and poor, women and men, and older and younger generations. Climate justice seeks to address inequities worsened by greenhouse gas emissions and the physical impacts of climate change, as well as inequities that come from the steps societies take to slow, stop, and adapt to climate change. This prompt asks you to think about how leading-edge technology solutions (e.g. 5G, big data, Artificial Intelligence, Augmented/Virtual Reality, and others) can play a role in creating more just outcomes in climate mitigation (slowing and stopping climate change) as well as climate adaptation (surviving and thriving as the climate changes). Technology solutions targeting the U.S./developed world contexts are of interest. Programmatic solutions are not of interest. Themes to Consider Please consider the following themes and questions when developing the focus of your project. These are thought starters and should be used as additional context for the prompt. Recognize that certain communities are affected differently by climate change ● Understand the ways that the following groups experience climate change: indigenous peoples, Black American communities and other communities of color, children, aging populations, people with disabilities, women, immigrants, and low-income populations.
    [Show full text]
  • An Environmental Justice Critique of Biofuels, in Energy Justice US and International Perspectives (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018)
    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328566418 An environmental justice critique of biofuels, in Energy Justice US and International Perspectives (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018) Chapter · October 2018 DOI: 10.4337/9781786431769.00010 CITATION READS 1 105 1 author: Carmen Gonzalez Loyola University Chicago 54 PUBLICATIONS 443 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Energy justice View project Sustainable Development View project All content following this page was uploaded by Carmen Gonzalez on 28 October 2018. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Energy Justice US and International Perspectives Edited by Raya Salter Fordham Law School (Adjunct) and Principal Attorney, Imagine Power LLC, USA Carmen G. Gonzalez Professor of Law, Seattle University School of Law, USA Elizabeth Ann Kronk Warner Professor of Law and Director, Tribal Law and Government Center, University of Kansas School of Law, USA NEW HORIZONS IN ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY LAW Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. Cheltenham, UK • Northampton, MA, USA © The Editors and Contributors Severally 2018 ISBN 978 1 78643 175 2 (cased) ISBN 978 1 78643 176 9 (eBook) 1 Chapter 3 An environmental justice critique of biofuels Carmen G. Gonzalez* 1. INTRODUCTION Replacing fossil fuels with biofuels derived from renewable organic matter has been promoted as a means of mitigating climate change, achieving energy security, and fostering economic development in the countries that produce the crops used as biofuel feedstocks.1 This win-win narrative presents biofuels as the solution to the challenges of poverty, climate change, and dependence on non-renewable forms of energy.
    [Show full text]
  • Frontlines Climate Justice
    Frontlines Climate Justice Executive Action Platform The development of the Frontlines Climate Justice Executive Action Platform was disrupted, like everything else in 2020, by the COVID-19 pandemic. The enormous human toll of this disease—the infections and deaths, first and foremost, as well as job losses in the tens of millions— cannot be overstated. However, like multiple climate disasters, such as wildfires in the West and hurricanes from Ike to Katrina to Sandy, Harvey, and Maria, COVID-19 is a “natural disaster” in name only. The unmistakable and tragic effects of this pandemic include disproportionate infections, fatalities, and job losses for people of color, but these effects are strictly human-made—by inaccessible health care and other public policies, decades of disinvestment in poor communities, employment discrimination, and much else. Among many human-made factors to recognize in this crisis, this Platform stresses the role of environmental racism and the need for en- vironmental justice. Poor air quality, which is concentrated in communi- ties of color, correlates closely with chronic respiratory and other health conditions that increase risk for COVID-19 fatality. A recent Harvard public health study of more than 3000 counties found a clear correla- tion between exposure to higher rates of particulate matter (soot) and COVID-19 death rates. Early data on the demographics of COVID-19 have borne out exactly what could be predicted in a country where the poorest people, many without access to quality health care, are often living in the most polluted places. This pandemic also foreshadows similar but potentially more frequent public health crises to come, without bold and urgent action on climate change.
    [Show full text]
  • H U M a N Rig H Ts a N D C Lim a Te C H a N
    UN Human Rights The climate crisis is a human rights crisis INTRO Climate change threatens the enjoyment of all human rights , including the rights to health, water, food, housing, self-determination, and life itself. “Climate change is Octo ber 2018 Climate change is man-made. It is a result of policy choices that breach the the greatest threat affirmative obligations of States to respect, protect and fulfil human rights. to human rights in And these policy choices are harming millions of people now. the 21 st century .” Climate justice requires climate solutions grounded in human rights, equality Mary Robinson, and non-discrimination; the participation of those most affected; the President, Mary equitable sharing of costs, Robinson Foundation burdens and benefits; – Climate Justice accountability; and rule of law. This must include accountability for polluters, redress for victims, and protection of the vulnerable in all prevention, response, mitigation and remedial measures. It requires the adoption of smart policies that address and are up to the scale of the problem. The Paris Agreement , the first universal legally binding climate change agreement, represents an initial step in this direction. It calls upon States to respect, promote and consider their respective human rights obligations , including the right to development, when taking action to address climate change. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 13 also calls for urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts within the larger context of the 2030 Agenda , itself a human rights-based document. On 2 July 2018, the Human Rights Council adopted the latest in a series of resolutions on human rights and climate change (A/HRC/RES/38/4) which calls, among other things, for States to consider human rights within the context of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and to adopt a comprehensive, integrated and gender-responsive approach to climate change adaptation and mitigation policies.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethics, Morality, and the Psychology of Climate Justice
    Journal Pre-proof Ethics, Morality, and the Psychology of Climate Justice Adam R. Pearson, Corinne G. Tsai, Susan Clayton PII: S2352-250X(21)00027-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.03.001 Reference: COPSYC 1136 To appear in: Current Opinion in Psychology Received Date: 9 December 2020 Revised Date: 26 February 2021 Accepted Date: 3 March 2021 Please cite this article as: Pearson AR, Tsai CG, Clayton S, Ethics, Morality, and the Psychology of Climate Justice, Current Opinion in Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.03.001. This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. © 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Running head: MORALITY AND CLIMATE JUSTICE 1 Ethics, Morality, and the Psychology of Climate Justice Adam R. Pearson 1, Corinne G. Tsai 2, and Susan Clayton 3 1 Department of Psychological Science, Pomona College, Claremont, CA, USA 2 Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK 3 Department of Psychology, College of Wooster, Wooster, OH, USA Corresponding author: Adam R. Pearson ([email protected]) JournalDeclaration ofPre-proof interest: none MORALITY AND CLIMATE JUSTICE 2 Abstract Climate change is increasingly understood as a social justice issue by academics, policymakers, and the public, however, the nature of these perceptions, and their implications for cooperation and decision making, have only recently begun to receive empirical attention.
    [Show full text]
  • Going, Going, Gone
    Going, Going, Gone The role of auctions and competition in renewable electricity support Simon Moore Edited by Guy Newey Policy Exchange is the UK’s leading think tank. We are an educational charity whose mission is to develop and promote new policy ideas that will deliver better public services, a stronger society and a more dynamic economy. Registered charity no: 1096300. Policy Exchange is committed to an evidence-based approach to policy development. We work in partnership with academics and other experts and commission major studies involving thorough empirical research of alternative policy outcomes. We believe that the policy experience of other countries offers important lessons for government in the UK. We also believe that government has much to learn from business and the voluntary sector. Trustees Danny Finkelstein (Chairman of the Board), David Meller (Deputy Chair), Theodore Agnew, Richard Briance, Simon Brocklebank-Fowler, Robin Edwards, Richard Ehrman, Virginia Fraser, Edward Heathcoat Amory, George Robinson, Robert Rosenkranz, Charles Stewart Smith and Simon Wolfson. About the Authors Simon Moore joined Policy Exchange in August 2010 as a Research Fellow for the Environment & Energy Unit. Before joining Policy Exchange, Simon worked for London-based think tank The Stockholm Network. He has a Master’s degree in Public Policy from the University of Maryland and a Bachelor’s degree in Politics from Lancaster University, where he was awarded the Oakeshott Prize for best overall performance in political theory and comparative politics. Guy Newey is Head of Environment and Energy at Policy Exchange. Before joining Policy Exchange, Guy worked as a journalist, including three years as a foreign correspondent in Hong Kong.
    [Show full text]