What explains public support for climate policies? A review of empirical and experimental studies

The lack of broad public support prevents the implementation of effective climate policies. This article aims to examine why citizens support or reject climate policies. For this purpose, we provide a cross-disciplinary overview of empirical and experimental research on public attitudes and preferences that has emerged in the last few years. The various factors influencing policy support are divided into three general categories: (1) social-psychological factors and climate change perception, such as the positive influences of left-wing political orientation, egalitarian worldviews, environmental and self-transcendent values, climate change knowledge, risk perception, or emotions like interest and hope; (2) the perception of climate policy and its design, which includes, among others, the preference of pull over push measures, the positive role of perceived policy effectiveness, the level of policy costs, as well as the positive effect of perceived policy fairness and the recycling of potential policy revenues; (3) contextual factors, such as the positive influence of social trust, norms and participation, wider economic, political and geographical aspects, or the different effects of specific media events and communications. Finally, we discuss the findings and provide suggestions for future research.

Policy relevance

Public opinion is a significant determinant of policy change in democratic countries. Policy makers may be reluctant to implement climate policies if they expect public opposition. This article seeks to provide a better understanding of the various factors influencing public responses to climate policy proposals. Most of the studied factors include perceptions about climate change, policy and its attributes, all of which are amenable to intervention. The acquired insights can thus assist in improving policy design and communication with the overarching objective to garner more public support for effective climate policy.     

Temperature Extremes from Canadian Regional Climate Model (CRCM) Climate Change Projections

Future climate projections of extreme events can help forewarn society of high-impact events and allow the development of better adaptation strategies. In this study a non-stationary model for Generalized Extreme Value (GEV) distributions is used to analyze the trend in extreme temperatures in the context of a changing climate and compare it with the trend in average temperatures.

The analysis is performed using the climate projections of the Canadian Regional Climate Model (CRCM), under an IPCC SRES A2 greenhouse gas emissions scenario, over North America. Annual extremes in daily minimum and maximum temperatures are analyzed. Significant positive trends for the location parameter of the GEV distribution are found, indicating an expected increase in extreme temperature values. The scale parameter of the GEV distribution, on the other hand, reveals a decrease in the variability of temperature extremes in some continental regions. Trends in the annual minimum and maximum temperatures are compared with trends in average winter and summer temperatures, respectively. In some regions, extreme temperatures exhibit a significantly larger increase than the seasonal average temperatures.

The CRCM projections are compared with those of its driving model and framed in the context of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, phase 3 (CMIP3) Global Climate Model projections. This enables us to establish the CRCM position within the CMIP3 climate projection uncertainty range. The CRCM is validated against the HadEX2 dataset in order to assess the CRCM representation of temperature extremes in the present climate. The validation is also framed in the context of CMIP3 validation results. The CRCM cold extremes validate better and are closer to the driving model and CMIP3 projections than the hot extremes.     

The role of money and the financial sector in energy-economy models used for assessing climate and energy policy

This article outlines a critical gap in the assessment methodology used to estimate the macroeconomic costs and benefits of climate and energy policy, which could lead to misleading information being used for policy-making. We show that the Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) models that are typically used for assessing climate policy use assumptions about the financial system that sit at odds with the observed reality. These assumptions lead to ‘crowding out’ of capital and, because of the way the models are constructed, negative economic impacts (in terms of gross domestic product (GDP) and welfare) from climate policy in virtually all cases.

In contrast, macro-econometric models, which follow non-equilibrium economic theory and adopt a more empirical approach, apply a treatment of the financial system that is more consistent with reality. Although these models also have major limitations, they show that green investment need not crowd out investment in other parts of the economy – and may therefore offer an economic stimulus. Our conclusion is that improvements in both modelling approaches should be sought with some urgency – both to provide a better assessment of potential climate and energy policy and to improve understanding of the dynamics of the global financial system more generally.

POLICY RELEVANCE

This article discusses the treatment of the financial system in the macroeconomic models that are used in assessments of climate and energy policy. It shows major limitations in approach that could result in misleading information being provided to policy-makers.     

The challenges of monitoring national climate policy: learning lessons from the EU

One of the most central and novel features of the new climate governance architecture emerging from the 2015 Paris Agreement is the transparency framework committing countries to provide, inter alia, regular progress reports on national pledges to address climate change. Many countries will rely on public policies to turn their pledges into action. This article focuses on the EU’s experience with monitoring national climate policies in order to understand the challenges that are likely to arise as the Paris Agreement is implemented around the world. To do so, the research employs – for the first time – comparative empirical data submitted by states to the EU’s monitoring system. Our findings reveal how the EU’s predominantly technical interpretation of four international reporting quality criteria – an approach borrowed from reporting on GHG fluxes – has constrained knowledge production and stymied debate on the performance of individual climate policies. Key obstacles to more in-depth reporting include not only political concerns over reporting burdens and costs, but also struggles over who determines the nature of climate policy monitoring, the perceived usefulness of reporting information, and the political control that policy knowledge inevitably generates. Given the post-Paris drive to achieve greater transparency, the EU’s experience offers a sobering reminder of the political and technical challenges associated with climate policy monitoring, challenges that are likely to bedevil the Paris Agreement for decades to come.

Policy relevance

The 2009 Copenhagen summit ushered in a more bottom-up system of international climate governance. Such systems typically depend on strong monitoring approaches to assess past performance and estimate future national contributions over time. This article shows why decision makers at multiple governance levels should pay serious attention to empirical data on the experiences and challenges that have emerged around monitoring in the EU, a self-proclaimed climate leader. The analysis highlights key political and administrative challenges that policy makers will likely encounter in implementing climate policy monitoring and ensuring transparency in the spirit of the Paris Agreement.     

Global impact of a climate treaty if the Human Development Index replaces GDP as a welfare proxy

This study explores the implications of shifting the narrative of climate policy evaluation from one of costs/benefits or economic growth to a message of improving social welfare. Focusing on the costs of mitigation and the associated impacts on gross domestic product (GDP) may translate into a widespread concern that a climate agreement will be very costly. This article considers the well-known Human Development Index (HDI) as an alternative criterion for judging the welfare effects of climate policy. We estimate what the maximum possible annual average increase in HDI welfare per tons of CO₂ would be within the carbon budget associated with limiting warming to 2°C over the period 2015–2050. Emission pathways are determined by a policy that allows the HDI of poor countries and their emissions to increase under a business-as-usual development path, while countries with a high HDI value (>0.8) have to restrain their emissions to ensure that the global temperature rise does not exceed 2°C. For comparison, the well-known multi-regional RICE model is used to assess GDP growth under the same climate change policy goals.

Policy relevance

This is the first study that shifts the narrative of climate policy evaluation from one of GDP growth to a message of improving social welfare, as captured by the HDI. This could make it easier for political leaders and climate negotiators to publicly commit themselves to ambitious carbon emission reduction goals, such as limiting global warming to 2°C, as in the (non-binding) agreement made at COP 21 in Paris in 2015. We find that if impacts are framed in terms of growth in HDI per t CO₂ emission per capita instead of in GDP, the HDI of poor countries and their emissions are allowed to increase under a business-as-usual development path, whereas countries with a high HDI (>0.8) must control emissions so that global temperature rise remains within 2°C. Importantly, a climate agreement is more attractive for rich countries under the HDI than the GDP frame. This is good news, as these countries have to make the major contribution to emissions reductions.     

Power,coalitions and institutional change in South African climate policy

This paper examines power relations, coalitions and conflicts that drive and hinder institutional change in South African climate policy. The analysis finds that the most contested climate policies are those that create distributional conflicts where powerful, non-poor actors will potentially experience real losses to their fossil fuel-based operations. This finding opposes the assumption of competing objectives between emissions and poverty reduction. Yet, actors use discourse that relates to potentially competing objectives between emissions reductions, jobs, poverty reduction and economic welfare.

The analysis relates to the broader questions on how to address public policy problems that affect the two objectives of mitigating climate change and simultaneously boosting socio-economic development. South Africa is a middle-income country that represents the challenge of accommodating simultaneous efforts for emissions and poverty reduction.

Institutional change has been constrained especially in the process towards establishing climate budgets and a carbon tax. The opposing coalitions have succeeded in delaying the implementation of these processes, as a result of unequal power relations. Institutional change in South African climate policy can be predominantly characterized as layering with elements of policy innovation. New policies build on existing regulations in all three cases of climate policy examined: the climate change response white paper, the carbon tax and the renewable energy programme. Unbalanced power relations between coalitions of support in government and civil society and opposition mainly from the affected industry result in very fragile institutional change.

Key policy insights

• The South African government has managed to drive institutional change in climate policy significantly over the past 7 years.

• Powerful coalitions of coal-related industries and their lobbies have constrained institutional change and managed to delay the implementation of carbon pricing measures.

• A successfully managed renewable energy programme has started to transform a coal- and nuclear-powered electricity sector towards integrating sustainable energy technologies. The programme is vulnerable to intergovernmental opposition and requires management at the highest political levels.

• Potential conflict with poverty reduction measures is not a major concern that actively hinders institutional change towards climate objectives. Predominantly non-poor actors frequently use poverty-related discourse to elevate their interests to issues of public concern.

     

The tools of climate adaptation policy: analysing instruments and instrument selection

Governments have a key role to play in the process of climate adaptation, through the development and implementation of public policy. Governments have access to a diverse array of instruments that can be employed to adapt their operations and influence the behaviour of individuals, organizations, and other governments. However, the choice of policy instrument is political, because it affects the distribution of benefits and costs, and entrenches institutional procedures and resources that are difficult to redeploy. This article identifies four key governing resources that governments employ in the service of adaptation and analyses these resources using criteria drawn from the policy studies literature. For each category, specific policy instruments are described, and examples are provided to illustrate how they have been used in particular jurisdictions. The article also discusses instrument selection, focusing on trade-offs among the instrument attributes, processes for setting the stage for instrument choice, jurisdictional constraints on instrument selection, and ways to avoid negative vertical and horizontal policy interplay.

Policy relevance

Adaptation is a nascent field of public policy, and courses of action to reduce vulnerability and build adaptive capacity are in their infancy. This article contributes to policy development and analysis by identifying the range of policy instruments available to governments and analysing concrete ways in which they are employed to implement adaptation policy objectives. Taking stock of these adaptation tools and comparing their behavioural assumptions and attributes helps to illuminate potential policy options, and to evaluate their technical viability, political acceptability, and economic feasibility. Providing examples of how these instruments have been implemented successfully in other jurisdictions offers ideas and lessons for public officials.     

The (ir)relevance of transaction costs in climate policy instrument choice: an analysis of the EU and the US

This article assesses the relevance of ex post transaction costs in the choice of climate policy instruments in the EU (focusing mainly on the example of Germany) and the US. It reviews all publicly available empirical ex post transaction cost studies of climate policy instruments broken down by the main private and public sector cost factors and offers hypotheses on how these factors may scale depending on instrument design and other contextual factors. The key finding from the evaluated schemes is that it is possible to reject the hypothesis that asymmetries in ex post transaction costs across instruments are large and, thus, play a pivotal role in climate policy instrument choice. Both total and relative ex post transaction costs can be considered low. This conjecture differs from the experience in other areas of environmental policy instruments where high total transaction costs are considered to be important factors in the overall assessment of optimal environmental policy choice. Against this background, the main claim of this article is that in climate policy instrument choice, ex post transaction cost considerations play a minor role in large countries that feature similar institutional characteristics as the EU and the US. Rather, the focus should be on the efficiency properties of instruments for incentivizing abatement, as well as equity and political economy considerations (and other societally relevant objectives). In order to inform transaction cost considerations in climate policy instrument choice in countries that adopt new climate policies, more data would be desirable in order to enable more robust estimates of design- and context-specific transaction-cost scaling factors.

Policy relevance

The findings of this study can help inform policy makers who plan to set up novel climate policy instruments. The results indicate that ex post transaction costs play a minor role for large countries that feature similar institutional characteristics as the EU and the US. For instrument design the focus should rather be on efficiency properties of instruments in incentivizing abatement, as well as equity and political economy considerations (and other societally relevant objectives).     

Climate policy strength compared: China,the US,the EU,India, Russia,and Japan

The few systematic international comparisons of climate policy strength made so far have serious weaknesses, particularly those that assign arbitrary weightings to different policy instrument types in order to calculate an aggregate score for policy strength. This article avoids these problems by ranking the six biggest emitters by far – China, the US, the EU, India, Russia, and Japan – on a set of six key policy instruments that are individually potent and together representative of climate policy as a whole: carbon taxes, emissions trading, feed-in tariffs, renewable energy quotas, fossil fuel power plant bans, and vehicle emissions standards. The results cast strong doubt on any idea that there is a clear hierarchy on climate policy with Europe at the top: the EU does lead on a number of policies but so does Japan. China, the US, and India each lead on one area. Russia is inactive on all fronts. At the same time climate policy everywhere remains weak compared to what it could be.

Policy relevance

This study enables climate policy strength, defined as the extent to which the statutory provisions of climate policies are likely to restrict GHG emissions if implemented as intended, to be assessed and compared more realistically across space and time. As such its availability for the six biggest emitters, which together account for over 70% of global CO₂ emissions, should facilitate international negotiations (1) by giving participants a better idea of where major emitters stand relative to each other as far as climate policy stringency is concerned, and (2) by identifying areas of weakness that need action.     

Could Cohesion Policy push EU climate efforts?

The main purpose of this article is to evaluate the extent to which the Cohesion Policy of the EU contributes to its climate change mitigation effort. While climate change mitigation and the EU Cohesion Policy have been both thoroughly studied theoretically, the novelty of the present article lies in an analysis of their mutual relationship. Also, a unique feature of this research is an analysis of the contribution of the Cohesion Policy to climate change mitigation over a period of 20 years, including a comparison of the three last programming periods (2000–2006, 2007–2013 and 2014–2020). The results of this research suggest that, while the beginning of the new millennium saw the Cohesion Policy neglecting the issue of climate change mitigation, the current programming period (2014–2020) placed it among its key priorities. This conclusion is supported by a comprehensive set of data on five selected indicators. This article also displays the results against the perspective of the overall climate change mitigation objectives of the EU.

POLICY RELEVANCE

The present article shows how a policy, which used to be considered rather distant from climate change, progressively adopted climate change mitigation as one of its principal objectives. As such, it provides a practical guidance on the integration of climate change mitigation in other policy areas, which may be applied not only in a supranational organisation but also on a national, regional or local level.     

Change and transition: the climate of Ukraine's agri-food sector

The agri-food sector has contributed significantly to climate change, but has an important role to play in climate change mitigation and adaptation. The agri-food sector has many potential win–win–win strategies that benefit mitigation and adaptation, and also deliver gains in rural income and land management. Post-Soviet transition economies provide a good model for understanding some of the barriers to adaptation and mitigation in the agri-food sector, due to their significant unmet agricultural potential combined with inefficient energy use. Ukraine is used as a case study to explore the barriers and bridges to addressing climate change in a post-Soviet state. A variety of stakeholders and farmers were interviewed about mitigation and adaptation and the current response capacity. Grounded theory analysis revealed themes that are perceived to function as barriers including: pandering, oligarchs and market interventions; corruption and transparency; and survival, freedom and law enforcement. Foreign involvement and investment emerged as a bridge to overcoming these barriers. The results indicate that significant progress in climate mitigation and adaptation in the agri-food sector in Ukraine will only be achieved if some of the wider political and social issues facing the country can be addressed.

Policy relevance

Ukraine has considerable potential for both agricultural production and climate change mitigation; however, this potential can only be met by identifying and addressing barriers currently impeding progress. This article found that barriers to effective climate change are perceived to stem from wider post-Soviet transition issues. These wider issues need to be addressed during the implementation of climate policy since they are viewed to be important by a wide variety of stakeholders. International negotiations have provided little incentive for Ukraine to achieve effective mitigation, and corrupt practices further impair mitigation projects. In addition, export quotas currently function as a maladaptive climate policy and reduce both farmers' capacity in Ukraine and international food security. Meanwhile, foreign involvement, not just financial investment, but also the investment of ideas can provide a bridge to effective climate policy. The international community needs to provide a legal framework and assist Ukraine in adopting transparent processes in order to successfully execute climate policy.     

Do international factors influence the passage of climate change legislation?

The number of climate change laws in major economies has grown from less than 40 in 1997 to almost 500 at the end of 2013. The passage of these laws is influenced by both domestic and international factors. This article reviews the main international factors, drawing on a powerful new dataset of climate legislation in 66 national jurisdictions. We find that the propensity to legislate on climate change is heavily influenced by the passage of similar laws elsewhere, suggesting a strong and so far under-appreciated role for international policy diffusion. International treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol work in two ways. The impact of the Kyoto Protocol itself is limited to countries with formal obligations under the treaty. In addition, the prestige of hosting an international climate summit is associated with a subsequent boost in legislation. Legislators seem to respond to the expectations of climate leadership that these events bestow on their host.

Policy relevance

A global solution to climate change will ultimately have to be anchored in domestic legislation, which creates the legal basis for countries to take action. Countries are passing climate legislation in a growing number. This article asks to what extent they are motivated to do so by international factors, such as existing treaty obligations. We find that the Kyoto Protocol has been a less important factor in explaining climate legislation outside Annex I than the passage of similar laws elsewhere. This suggests that international policy diffusion plays an important and so far under-appreciated role in global climate policy, complementing formal treaty obligations.     

Linkage of greenhouse gas emissions trading systems: learning from experience

The last ten years have seen the growth of linkages between many of the world's cap-and-trade systems for GHGs, both directly between systems, and indirectly via connections to credit systems such as the Clean Development Mechanism. If nations have tried to act in their own self-interest, this proliferation of linkages implies that for many nations, the expected benefits of linkage outweighed expected costs. In this article, we draw on the past decade of experience with carbon markets to examine why systems have demonstrated this revealed preference for linking. Linkage is a multi-faceted policy decision that can be used by political jurisdictions to achieve a variety of objectives, and we find qualitative evidence that many economic, political, and strategic factors – ranging from geographic proximity to integrity of emissions reductions – influence the decision to link. We also identify some potentially important effects of linkage, such as loss of control over domestic carbon policies, which do not appear to have deterred real-world decisions to link.

Policy relevance

These findings have implications for the future role that decentralized linkages may play in international climate policy architecture. The Kyoto Protocol has entered what is probably its final commitment period, covering only a small fraction of global GHG emissions. Under the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action, negotiators may now gravitate toward a hybrid system, combining top-down elements for establishing targets with bottom-up elements of pledge-and-review tied to national policies and actions. The incentives for linking these national policies are likely to continue to produce direct connections among regional, national, and sub-national cap-and-trade systems. The growing network of decentralized, direct linkages among these systems may turn out to be a key part of a future hybrid climate policy architecture.     

Citizens' perceptions of justice in international climate policy: an empirical analysis

Relying on a recent survey of more than 3400 participants from China, Germany, and the US, this article empirically analyses citizens' perceptions of key guiding principles for sharing mitigation costs across countries, justification of climate policy and trust in climate policy. Our findings suggest that the ranking of the main principles for burden-sharing is identical in China, Germany, and the US: accountability followed by capability, egalitarianism, and sovereignty. Thus, on a general level, citizens across these countries seem to have a common (normative) understanding of fairness. We therefore find no evidence that citizens' (stated) fairness preferences are detrimental to future burden-sharing agreements. In all three countries a majority of citizens considers international climate policy to be justified, but citizens' perceptions differ across specific items and countries. Finally, a substantial portion of citizens in all countries exhibit a lack of trust in international climate agreements.

Policy relevance

Disagreement over the distribution of mitigation costs across countries is blocking current negotiations about a new international climate change agreement to be adopted in 2015. At the heart of this disagreement are different perceptions of distributive justice among those involved in climate policy making. Our findings show that there is no difference in the ranking of fairness principles across citizens in China, Germany, and the US, suggesting that the common ground for crafting a future agreement is larger than expected. In particular, the accountability principle should weigh heavily when deciding on the burden-sharing. In addition, our findings suggest that in order to gain support among citizens, international climate policy may need to take measures to improve trust.     

Mainstreaming climate change adaptation into inland aquaculture policies in Thailand

While there have been many pilot projects on adaptation undertaken in the fisheries and aquaculture sector, state policies are only just beginning to address let alone refer to climate change. This study explores the climate-related content, climate sensitivities, and opportunities to incorporate climate change concerns in a set of aquaculture policies by the government of Thailand. The analysis is based on content analysis of policy documents and in-depth interviews with 14 officials that had roles in the design or implementation of 8 Department of Fisheries policies. The Aquaculture Master Plan 2011–2016 and the now abandoned Tilapia Strategy refer directly to climate variability or change. The Master Plan also suggests measures or strategies, such as investment in research, and the transfer of technologies, which would be helpful to sustainability and adaptation. Other policies suggest, or at the very least include, practices which could contribute to strengthening management of climate-related risks, for example: a registration policy included provisions for compensation; extension programme policy recognizes the importance of extreme events; and a standards policy gives guidance on site selection and water management. Most existing aquaculture policies appear to be sensitive to the impacts of climate change; for instance, the zoning policy is sensitive to spatial shifts in climate. Stakeholders had ideas on how policies could be made more robust; in the case of zoning, by periodically reviewing boundaries and adjusting them as necessary.

POLICY RELEVANCE

This study is one of the first evaluations of the coverage and sensitivity of aquaculture policies to climate change. It shows that while existing policies in Thailand are beginning to refer explicitly to climate change, they do not yet include much in the way of adaptation responses, underlining the need for identifying entry points as has been done in this analysis. Further mainstreaming is one option; another possibility is to adopt a more segregated approach, at least initially, and to collect various policy ideas under a new strategic policy for the aquaculture sector as a whole.     

Narrowing gaps between research and policy development in climate change adaptation work in the water resources and agriculture sectors of Cambodia

Narrowing research and policy, while challenging, is especially important in climate change adaptation work (CCA) due to the high uncertainties involved in planning for climate change. This article aims to seek stakeholders’ opinions regarding how research and policy development can be bridged within the Cambodian water resources and agriculture sectors. The study used institutional ethnography methods with informants from government organizations, local academia, and development partners (DPs). This article identifies a number of challenges, and barriers for narrowing research–policy development gaps, including: limited effectiveness of governmental policies and planning; lack of relevant information required to promote evidence-based planning and policy development; and communication barriers. Evidence-based planning is valued by government officials most when there is actual and effective implementation of policies and plans. In practice, this often implies that governmental policies and plans need be scoped and scaled down to meet the available budget, and thus be achievable. In the long term, it also means building the capacity for policy-relevant research on climate change adaptation within Cambodia. Engaging policy stakeholders in research process for co-producing adaptation knowledge, and introducing knowledge intermediaries are suggested by informants as means to narrowing gaps between research and policy development. The presence of the Cambodia's Prime Minister in research–policy dialogues is recommended as important for attracting the attention of high-level policy makers.

Policy relevance

As a least developed and highly climate-vulnerable country, Cambodia has received climate change funding to implement a number of climate adaptation initiatives. Cambodia is likely to receive more climate change finance in the future. This article aims to assist evidence-based planning, in particular, through policy-relevant research on CCA, so that resources for adaptation in Cambodia are used effectively and efficiently. This research also directly benefits the sustainable development of the country.     

Benefit cost analysis,resilience and climate change

Applying a resilience theory framework, land transport funding in New Zealand is used to show how benefit cost analysis can reinforce a preference for maintaining existing economic and social systems when, instead, consideration of more socially disruptive options may be required. In this context, resilience is seen as the ability to maintain transport systems rather than the ability to reduce the probability of climate change. The latter role of resilience attempts to identify thresholds and regime shifts, and so critiques decision-making processes, while the former privileges social stability, thereby reducing the range of potentially useful emission mitigation options to be considered.

Policy relevance

Transitioning to a lower-carbon future requires policy formulation that challenges business-as-usual assumptions. Benefit cost analysis can be applied in ways that create barriers to such transitioning. The New Zealand case study identifies the conditions under which this can be the case. That benefit cost analysis could undermine the potential of resilience theory and application to identify low-carbon emission pathways is of concern to policy makers globally.     

Options to overcome the barriers to pricing European agricultural emissions

Although agriculture could contribute substantially to European emission reductions, its mitigation potential lies untapped and dormant. Market-based instruments could be pivotal in incentivizing cost-effective abatement. However, sector specificities in transaction costs, leakage risks and distributional impacts impede its implementation. The significance of such barriers critically hinges on the dimensions of policy design. This article synthesizes the work on emissions pricing in agriculture together with the literature on the design of market-based instruments. To structure the discussion, an options space is suggested to map policy options, focusing on three key dimensions of policy design. More specifically, it examines the role of policy coverage, instruments and transfers to farmers in overcoming the barriers. First, the results show that a significant proportion of agricultural emissions and mitigation potential could be covered by a policy targeting large farms and few emission sources, thereby reducing transaction costs. Second, whether an instrument is voluntary or mandatory influences distributional outcomes and leakage. Voluntary instruments can mitigate distributional concerns and leakage risks but can lead to subsidy lock-in and carbon price distortion. Third, the impact on transfers resulting from the interaction of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) with emissions pricing will play a key role in shaping political feasibility and has so far been underappreciated.

POLICY RELEVANCE

Following the 2015 Paris Agreement, European climate policy is at a crossroads. Achieving cost-effectively the 2030 and 2050 European targets requires all sectors to reduce their emissions. Yet, the cornerstone of European climate policy, the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), covers only about half of European emissions. Major sectors have been so far largely exempted from carbon pricing, in particular transport and agriculture. While transport has been increasingly under the spotlight as a possible candidate for an EU ETS sectoral expansion, policy discussions on pricing agricultural emissions have been virtually absent. This article attempts to fill this gap by investigating options for market-based instruments to reduce agricultural emissions while taking barriers to implementation into account.     

Green growth and climate change: conceptual and empirical considerations

The feasibility of green growth is studied in the context of climate change. As carbon emissions are easier to quantify than many other types of environmental pressure, it will be possible to reach a more definite conclusion about the likelihood of green growth than has been possible in the long-standing historical debate on growth versus the environment. We calculate the rate of decoupling between gross domestic product (GDP) and GHG emissions needed to achieve internationally agreed climate targets. Next, eight arguments are considered that together suggest that fast decoupling will be very difficult. Subsequently, we examine the main lines of research used by proponents of green growth to support their viewpoint, including theoretical arguments, exercises with integrated assessment models, and studies of the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis. It will be concluded that decoupling as a main or single strategy to combine economic and environmental aims should be judged as taking a very large risk with our common future. To minimize this risk we need to seriously consider reducing our dependence on growth. This requires a fundamental change of focus in both economic research and policy.

Policy relevance

Currently, green growth is the only strategy of mainstream economists and policy makers to address climate change. This article demonstrates that such an exclusive focus is very risky due to the scale of the challenge and the existence of various barriers to the fast decoupling of GHG emissions from economic output. It seems that the only option to combine environmental and economic objectives is reducing the dependence of our economies on growth. Finding strategies in line with this requires a fundamental change of focus in both economic research and policy.     

Next steps in geoengineering scenario research: limited deployment scenarios and beyond

Climate engineering has received increasing attention, but its discussion has remained on the sidelines of mainstream climate policy. The policy relevance of this previously exotic option is poised to rise because of the gap between the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement and slow global mitigation efforts. It is therefore crucial to understand the risks and benefits of the proposed schemes, and the social implications of policy choices. Assessment of the risks and benefits of solar geoengineering strongly depends on scenarios, but previous scenarios have not reflected the full range of social choices. In light of concerns over risks, a newer set of scenarios is desirable, which represents both uncertainties and social choices more fully. Borrowing and extending lessons from recent literature on the new community climate scenario process, we envision a possible scenario-building process that combines interdisciplinary scholarship with the involvement of stakeholders and citizens. The resultant scenarios would better characterize uncertainties of, and policy choices for, solar geoengineering, and foster critical appraisal of its risks and benefits. Such societal choices might include not only total ban and large-scale deployment, but also limited deployment, which has received less attention in the scenario literature. The interaction between scenario and governance research would be able to highlight the central issues at stake, including ethical, social, and political dimensions.

Key policy insights

• A more comprehensive assessment of solar geoengineering is necessary to evaluate its risks and benefits, necessitating new scenario research

• It is crucial to reflect the full span of policy choices and uncertainties with interdisciplinary collaboration in such scenarios

• Such societal choices might include not only total ban and large-scale deployment, but also limited deployment, which has received less attention in the scenario literature

• Participatory scenario research would enable incorporating the concerns and opinions of stakeholders and citizens in scenario creation