Health and environmental co-benefits and conflicts of actions to meet UK carbon targets

Many actions to reduce GHG emissions have wider impacts on health, the economy, and the environment, beyond their role in mitigating climate change. These ancillary impacts can be positive (co-benefits) or negative (conflicts). This article presents the first quantitative review of the wider impacts on health and the environment likely to arise from action to meet the UK's legally-binding carbon budgets. Impacts were assessed for climate measures directed at power generation, energy use in buildings, and industry, transport, and agriculture. The study considered a wide range of health and environmental impacts including air pollution, noise, the upstream impacts of fuel extraction, and the lifestyle benefits of active travel. It was not possible to quantify all impacts, but for those that were monetized the co-benefits of climate action (i.e. excluding climate benefits) significantly outweigh the negative impacts, with a net present value of more than £85 billion from 2008 to 2030. Substantial benefits arise from reduced congestion, pollution, noise, and road accidents as a result of avoided journeys. There is also a large health benefit as a result of increased exercise from walking and cycling instead of driving. Awareness of these benefits could strengthen the case for more ambitious climate mitigation action.

Policy relevance

This article demonstrates that actions to mitigate GHG emissions have significant wider benefits for health and the environment. Including these impacts in cost–benefit analysis would strengthen the case for the UK (and similar countries) to set ambitious emissions reduction targets. Understanding co-benefits and trade-offs will also improve coordination across policy areas and cut costs. In addition, co-benefits such as air quality improvements are often immediate and local, whereas climate benefits may occur on a longer timescale and mainly in a distant region, as well as being harder to demonstrate. Dissemination of the benefits, along with better anticipation of trade-offs, could therefore boost public support for climate action.     

Biofuel’s carbon balance: doubts, certainties and implications

In addition to lower carbon dioxide emissions, policies to reduce fossil fuel combustion can yield substantial air quality co-benefits via reduced emissions of co-pollutants such as particulate matter and air toxics. If co-pollutant intensity (the ratio of co-pollutant impacts to carbon dioxide emissions) varies across pollution sources, efficient policy design would seek greater emissions reductions where co-benefits are higher. The distribution of co-benefits also raises issues of environmental equity. This paper presents evidence on intersectoral, intrasectoral and spatial variations in co-pollutant intensity of industrial point sources in the United States, and discusses options for integrating co-benefits into climate policy design to advance efficiency and equity.     

Health co-benefits and the development of climate change mitigation policies in the European Union

The 2015 Paris Agreement requires increasingly ambitious emissions reduction efforts from its member countries. Accounting for ancillary positive health outcomes (health co-benefits) that result from implementing climate change mitigation policies can provide Parties to the Paris Agreement with a sound rationale for introducing stronger mitigation strategies. Despite this recognition, a knowledge gap exists on the role of health co-benefits in the development of climate change mitigation policies. To address this gap, the case study presented here investigates the role of health co-benefits in the development of European Union (EU) climate change mitigation policies through analysis and consideration of semi-structured interview data, government documents, journal articles and media releases. We find that while health co-benefits are an explicit consideration in the development of EU climate change mitigation policies, their influence on final policy outcomes has been limited. Our analysis suggests that whilst health co-benefits are a key driver of air pollution mitigation policies, climate mitigation policies are primarily driven by other factors, including economic costs and energy implications.

Key policy insights

• Health co-benefits are quantified and monetized as part of the development of EU climate change mitigation policies but their influence on the final policies agreed upon is limited.

• Barriers, such as the immediate economic costs associated with climate action, inhibit the influence of health co-benefits on the development of mitigation policies.

• Health co-benefits primarily drive the development of EU air pollution mitigation policies.

• The separation of responsibility for GHG and non-GHG emissions across Directorate Generals has decoupled climate change and air pollution mitigation policies, with consequences for the integration of health co-benefits in climate policy.

     

Economic consequences of the US withdrawal from the Kyoto/Bonn Protocol

Abstract

The US decision not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and the recent outcomes of the Bonn and Marrakech Conferences of the Parties have important implications for both the effectiveness and the efficiency of future climate policies. Among these implications, those related with technical change and with the functioning of the international market for carbon emissions are particularly relevant, because these variables have the largest impact on the overall abatement cost to be borne by Annex B countries in the short and in the long run. This paper analyses the consequences of the US decision to withdraw from the Kyoto/Bonn Protocol both on technological innovation and on the price of emission permits (and, as a consequence, on abatement costs). In particular, the analysis highlights mechanisms and feedbacks related to technological innovation, technological spillovers and R&D which could be relevant and which modify some policy relevant conclusions. First, we identify two feedback effects which explain why our results lead to a less significant fall in the price of permits than in most empirical analyses recently circulated. We show that the US defection from the Kyoto Protocol, by inducing a decline in the demand and price of emission permits, lowers the incentives to undertake energy-saving R&D. As a consequence, emissions increase and feed back on the demand and supply of permits, thus implying a lower decline in the price of permits than previously estimated. At the same time, as a result of the reduced R&D investments and the augmented emissions, climate change damages intensify and require an increase in investments that are again coupled with a growth of emissions. By thus again increasing the demand for permits and reducing their supply, this effect enhances the previous mechanism. Notwithstanding the lower decline in the price of permits, the paper still identifies a smaller price than would occur with a US participation. Therefore, we emphasise in a second step the crucial role of Russia in climate negotiations due to a large increase in Russia's bargaining power.     

对斯特恩新报告的要点评述和解读

 2006年10月,英国推出的由著名经济学家斯特恩爵士领导编写的《斯特恩回顾：气候变化经济学》,从经济学的角度着重论述了全球应对气候变化的紧迫性,强调只有尽快大幅度减少温室气体排放,才能避免全球升温超过2℃可能造成的巨大经济损失,且减排成本并不高。2008年4月,斯特恩爵士再次推出一份报告,提出为实现上述目标构建2012年后国际气候制度的基本要素,这对后续国际谈判可能会产生一定的影响。通过比较分析两份报告的关系和不同特点,对新报告中国际气候制度设计和评价的基本原则,全球减排的长期目标和减排义务的分担,通过资金、技术、市场、适应等国际政策措施吸引发展中国家参与,减少毁林排放,以及政策执行和制度建设等问题进行了评述和解读,其中内涵对深入开展国际气候制度的研究和我国参与国际气候谈判有重要启发。     

对斯特恩新报告的要点评述和解读

2006年10月,英国推出的由著名经济学家斯特恩爵士领导编写的《斯特恩回顾：气候变化经济学》,从经济学的角度着重论述了全球应对气候变化的紧迫性,强调只有尽快大幅度减少温室气体排放,才能避免全球升温超过2℃可能造成的巨大经济损失,且减排成本并不高。2008年4月,斯特恩爵士再次推出一份报告,提出为实现上述目标构建2012年后国际气候制度的基本要素,这对后续国际谈判可能会产生一定的影响。通过比较分析两份报告的关系和不同特点,对新报告中国际气候制度设计和评价的基本原则,全球减排的长期目标和减排义务的分担,通过资金、技术、市场、适应等国际政策措施吸引发展中国家参与,减少毁林排放,以及政策执行和制度建设等问题进行了评述和解读,其中内涵对深入开展国际气候制度的研究和我国参与国际气候谈判有重要启发。     

Economic consequences of the US withdrawal from the Kyoto/Bonn Protocol

The US decision not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and the recent outcomes of the Bonn and Marrakech Conferences of the Parties have important implications for both the effectiveness and the efficiency of future climate policies. Among these implications, those related with technical change and with the functioning of the international market for carbon emissions are particularly relevant, because these variables have the largest impact on the overall abatement cost to be borne by Annex B countries in the short and in the long run. This paper analyses the consequences of the US decision to withdraw from the Kyoto/Bonn Protocol both on technological innovation and on the price of emission permits (and, as a consequence, on abatement costs). In particular, the analysis highlights mechanisms and feedbacks related to technological innovation, technological spillovers and R&D which could be relevant and which modify some policy relevant conclusions. First, we identify two feedback effects which explain why our results lead to a less significant fall in the price of permits than in most empirical analyses recently circulated. We show that the US defection from the Kyoto Protocol, by inducing a decline in the demand and price of emission permits, lowers the incentives to undertake energy-saving R&D. As a consequence, emissions increase and feed back on the demand and supply of permits, thus implying a lower decline in the price of permits than previously estimated. At the same time, as a result of the reduced R&D investments and the augmented emissions, climate change damages intensify and require an increase in investments that are again coupled with a growth of emissions. By thus again increasing the demand for permits and reducing their supply, this effect enhances the previous mechanism. Notwithstanding the lower decline in the price of permits, the paper still identifies a smaller price than would occur with a US participation. Therefore, we emphasise in a second step the crucial role of Russia in climate negotiations due to a large increase in Russia’s bargaining power.     

A no cap but trade proposal for emission targets

One problem in international climate policy is the refusal of large developing countries to accept emission reduction targets. Brazil, China and India together account for about 20% of today's CO₂ emissions. We analyse the case in which there is no international agreement on emission reduction targets, but countries do have domestic targets, and trade permits across borders. We contrast two scenarios. In one scenario, Brazil, China and India adopt their business as usual emissions as their target. In this scenario, there are substantial exports of emission permits from developing to developed countries, and substantial economic gains for all. In the second scenario, Brazil, China and India reduce their emissions target so that they have no net economic gain from permit trade. Here, developing countries do not accept responsibility for climate change (as they bear no net costs), but they do contribute to an emission reduction policy by refusing to make money out of it. Adopting such break-even targets can be done at minor cost to developed and developing countries (roughly $2 bn/year each in extra costs and forgone benefits), while developing countries are still slightly better off than in the case without international emissions trade. This result is robust to variations in scenarios and parameters. It contrasts with Stewart and Wiener (2003) who propose granting ‘hot air’ to developing countries to seduce them to accept targets. In 2020, China and India could reduce their emissions by some 10% from the baseline without net economic costs.     

Linkages between climate change and sustainable development

Climate change does not yet feature prominently within the environmental or economic policy agendas of developing countries. Yet evidence shows that some of the most adverse effects of climate change will be in developing countries, where populations are most vulnerable and least likely to easily adapt to climate change, and that climate change will affect the potential for development in these countries. Some synergies already exist between climate change policies and the sustainable development agenda in developing countries, such as energy efficiency, renewable energy, transport and sustainable land-use policies. Despite limited attention from policy-makers to date, climate change policies could have significant ancillary benefits for the local environment. The reverse is also true as local and national policies to address congestion, air quality, access to energy services and energy diversity may also limit GHG emissions. Nevertheless there could be significant trade-offs associated with deeper levels of mitigation in some countries, for example where developing countries are dependent on indigenous coal and may be required to switch to cleaner yet more expensive fuels to limit emissions. The distributional impacts of such policies are an important determinant of their feasibility and need to be considered up-front. It follows that future agreements on mitigation and adaptation under the convention will need to recognise the diverse situations of developing countries with respect to their level of economic development, their vulnerability to climate change and their ability to adapt or mitigate. Recognition of how climate change is likely to influence other development priorities may be a first step toward building cost-effective strategies and integrated, institutional capacity in developing countries to respond to climate change. Opportunities may also exist in developing countries to use regional economic organisations to assist in the design of integrated responses and to exploit synergies between climate change and other policies such as those designed to combat desertification and preserve biodiversity.     

Managing carbon in a multiple use world: The implications of land-use decision context for carbon management

Human land use contributes significantly to the growth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Changes in land management practices have been proposed as a critical and cost-effective mechanism for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting the storage of additional carbon in vegetation and soils. However many discussions of the potential for land use to mitigate climate change only take into account biophysical factors such as vegetation and land cover and neglect how the agency of land owners themselves affects whether additional carbon storage can be achieved. Unlike many potential REDD opportunities in developing countries, land management in the U.S. to enhance carbon sequestration would occur against a backdrop of clearly defined, legally enforceable land ownership. In addition, more than a third of the land surface in the U.S. is managed by federal agencies who operate under legal guidelines for multiple use and is subject to demands from multiple constituencies. We set out to investigate how the goal of enhancing carbon sequestration through land use is perceived or implemented in one region of the U.S., and how this goal might intersect the existing drivers and incentives for public and private land use decision making. We conducted a case study through interviews of the major categories of landowners in the state of Colorado, which represents a mixture of public and privately held lands. By analyzing trends in interview responses across categories, we found that managing for carbon is currently a fairly low priority and we identify several barriers to more widespread consideration of carbon as a management priority including competing objectives, limited resources, lack of information, negative perceptions of offsetting and lack of a sufficient policy signal. We suggest four avenues for enhancing the potential for carbon to be managed through land use including clarifying mandates for public lands, providing compelling incentives for private landowners, improving understanding of the co-benefits and tradeoffs of managing for carbon, and creating more usable science to support decision making.     

Linkages between climate change and sustainable development

Abstract

Climate change does not yet feature prominently within the environmental or economic policy agendas of developing countries. Yet evidence shows that some of the most adverse effects of climate change will be in developing countries, where populations are most vulnerable and least likely to easily adapt to climate change, and that climate change will affect the potential for development in these countries. Some synergies already exist between climate change policies and the sustainable development agenda in developing countries, such as energy efficiency, renewable energy, transport and sustainable land-use policies. Despite limited attention from policy-makers to date, climate change policies could have significant ancillary benefits for the local environment. The reverse is also true as local and national policies to address congestion, air quality, access to energy services and energy diversity may also limit GHG emissions. Nevertheless there could be significant trade-offs associated with deeper levels of mitigation in some countries, for example where developing countries are dependent on indigenous coal and may be required to switch to cleaner yet more expensive fuels to limit emissions. The distributional impacts of such policies are an important determinant of their feasibility and need to be considered up-front. It follows that future agreements on mitigation and adaptation under the convention will need to recognise the diverse situations of developing countries with respect to their level of economic development, their vulnerability to climate change and their ability to adapt or mitigate. Recognition of how climate change is likely to influence other development priorities may be a first step toward building cost-effective strategies and integrated, institutional capacity in developing countries to respond to climate change. Opportunities may also exist in developing countries to use regional economic organisations to assist in the design of integrated responses and to exploit synergies between climate change and other policies such as those designed to combat desertification and preserve biodiversity.

© 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.     

Gearing carbon trading towards environmental co-benefits in China: Measurement model and policy implications

Given the local effects of co-pollutant emissions, the trading of carbon dioxide emissions between facilities to meet global objectives may improve or worsen local air quality and public health. To gear carbon trading toward maximum environmental co-benefits, a quantitative model based on facility-level carbon dioxide emissions, air pollution dispersion and concentration-response functions is proposed and applied to the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region to quantify potential changes of local public health caused by carbon dioxide transactions. The results show that the polluters with the highest Population Health Damage Intensity (PHDI) are medium-sized facilities, because larger facilities either employ more effective pollutant control technologies or are located farther away from densely populated areas. Using this modeling framework, key facilities, sectors and regions can be identified for maximizing the environmental co-benefits from introduction of carbon market and avoiding undesirable environmental damage.     

Aligning climate action with the self-interest and short-term dominated priorities of decision-makers

The global and long-term nature of climate change conflicts with the self-interest and short-term dominated priorities of decision-makers. Climate change mitigation makes sense at the global level, but not at the level of the individual decision-maker. This conflict has been and remains the main obstacle to effective global cooperation and mitigation. This paper proposes a framework that aligns climate action with short-term self-interest through results-based payments to governments. Its key components are: determining an emission benchmark for each country as well as a price for carbon saving; paying countries annually for reducing emissions below their respective benchmark; a new international fund to finance these annual payments by borrowing capital from private investors; and repaying borrowings in the long-term through payments made by countries to the fund based on a pre-determined allocation mechanism. This framework would offer important benefits over an approach focused on allocating climate action or a carbon budget among countries. These include the improved prospect of reaching an effective climate agreement and delivering fast and dramatic mitigation thanks to stronger political commitment, the transformation of short-term self-interest from an obstacle into a driver of climate action, and the additional financing created. The paper also proposes a pilot scheme focusing on hydrofluorocarbon emissions with a considerably lower financing requirement. This offers the possibility of an alternative financing mechanism, and thus a faster and more straightforward implementation path. Short-term financial incentives offered to governments could turn policy action from a burden into an opportunity from their perspective unlocking a huge potential for timely mitigation.

Key policy insights

• A new international framework that offers short-term, results-based payments to governments to promote mitigation action could lead to much more effective global mitigation and international cooperation.

• The financing of such an approach could be solved through a novel financing structure, backed by the long-term commitments of participating countries and thus aligning the timeframe of the financial costs of mitigation with its climate benefits.

• The effectiveness of results-based payments and the concept behind this new approach could be proven through a pilot scheme focusing on hydrofluorocarbon emissions.

     

Shifting discourses of climate change in India

Developing countries like India are under international pressure to sign a legally binding emissions treaty to avert catastrophic climatic change. Developing countries, however, have argued that any international agreement must be based on historic and per capita carbon emissions, with developed countries responsible for reducing their emissions first and funding mitigation and adaptation in other countries. Recently, however, several scholars have argued that Indian government climate change discourses are shifting, primarily by recognizing the “co-benefits” of an alignment between its development and climate change objectives, and by displaying increasing “flexibility” on mitigation targets. This study investigates the factors driving shifting Indian discourses of climate change by conducting and analyzing 25 interviews of Indian climate policy elites, including scientists, energy policy experts, leading government officials, journalists, business leaders, and advocates, in addition to analysis of articles published in Economic and Political Weekly (a prominent Indian policy journal), and reports published by the government and other agencies. Our analysis suggests that India’s concerns about increasing energy access and security, along with newer concerns about vulnerability to climate change and the international leadership aspirations of the Indian government, along with emergence of new actors and institutions, has led to plurality of discourses, with potential implications for India’s climate change policies.     

从理念到行动：温室气体与局地污染物减排的协同效益与协同控制研究综述

自20世纪90年代IPCC提出协同效益概念以来,大量研究充分证实了温室气体减排政策、措施能产生可观的局地生态环境质量和健康效益。相应地,既有研究也证实局地大气污染物减排政策、措施对温室气体减排同样具有协同效益。中国进入工业化成熟期不久,局地大气污染压力即达到峰值,又迎头遭遇国际应对气候变化浪潮,同时面临空气污染物与温室气体双重减排压力。因此,国内研究不仅关注“由碳及污”或“由污及碳”的单向协同效益评估,更加重视对综合减排措施的协同效益评价。21世纪初,美国国家环保局提出的温室气体与局地大气污染物协同控制概念在中国得到更为广泛的欢迎和接受,并由中国学者首先定义了协同控制的内涵,认为协同控制是实现最大化协同效益的手段和途径。这一进展将人们对协同效益的认识提升到“全球视野、局地行动”的新高度,推动人们从被动地接受“协同效益”,转而主动寻求“协同控制”温室气体和局地大气污染物,为统筹全球和国内（局地）两个减排战场,提供了从认识论、方法论到实践论的全方位支持。中国学者在国内外协同效益、协同控制研究基础上,构建协同控制效应评价和协同控制路径规划方法,并通过多个行业、城市、区域的案例研究证实了该方法体系的科学性和可行性。“协同控制”也已上升成为国家应对气候变化和持续改善大气环境质量的重要策略。在中国推进美丽中国建设、实现碳达峰目标和碳中和愿景的过程中,协同控制的理念、措施、政策将发挥愈加重要的作用。未来,协同控制研究需要将所关注的对象要素,从仅局限于大气扩展至整个生态环境系统;而对建立协同控制的治理体系的研究,将成为实现宏观层面气候变化与生态环境治理协同的关键。     

Which policy instruments attract foreign direct investments in renewable energy?

Reducing GHG emissions and mitigating climate change would require significant investments in renewable energy technologies. Foreign direct investments (FDI) in renewable energy (RE) have increased over the last years, contributing to the diffusion of RE globally. In the field of climate policy, there are multiple policy instruments aimed at attracting investments in renewable energy. This article aims to map the FDI flows globally including source and destination countries. Furthermore, the article investigates which policy instruments attract more FDI in RE sectors such as solar, wind and biomass, based on an econometric analysis of 137 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and non-OECD countries. The results show that Feed in Tariffs (FIT) followed by Fiscal Measures (FM), such as tax incentives and Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), are the most significant policy instrument that attract FDI in the RE sector globally. Regarding carbon pricing instruments, based on our analysis, carbon tax proved to be correlated with high attraction of FDI in OECD countries, whereas Emissions Trading Schemes (ETS) proved to be correlated with high attraction of FDI mainly in non-OECD countries.

Key policy insights

• Feed in Tariffs is the most significant policy instrument that attracts FDI in the Renewable Energy sector globally.

• Fiscal Measures (FM), such as tax incentives, show a significant and positive impact on renewable energy projects by foreign investors, and particularly on solar energy.

• Carbon pricing instruments, such as carbon taxation and emissions trading, proved to attract FDI in OECD and non-OECD countries respectively.

• Public investments, such as government funds for renewable energy projects, proved not as attractive to foreign private investors, perhaps because public funds are not perceived as stable in the long run.

     

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.     

Natural gas and climate finance

Should energy projects to extend the use of natural gas be considered for funding under public climate finance commitments? This article provides an overview of evidence for and against climate finance for natural gas projects. The argument focuses on a case study, the UK’s International Climate Fund (ICF). This synthesis concludes that gas-related projects will rarely be eligible for funding under public climate finance, save a few exceptions in which they provide energy access to households directly. Although gas power plants have generally lower emissions than those which use other fossil fuels such as coal, their impact will depend on the material constraints to calculate emissions reductions, the context of implementation, and the political economy of the target country. Three case studies demonstrate that energy access projects need to be understood as providing a whole range of sustainable benefits, from improving local health to reducing emissions. Overall, gas-related projects are complex interventions that require context-specific knowledge of both the effects of technology and the possible business models that can work in context.

POLICY RELEVANCE

This article investigates whether projects related to natural gas constitute an appropriate use of public climate finance, with a particular focus on the UK’s International Climate Fund. Policy makers in developed countries will decide in the coming years how to use public climate finance; that is, the fraction of overseas development assistance (ODA) for climate change mitigation and adaptation. In the UK, for example, the ICF is the most important instrument to provide climate finance for developing countries. In 2013, the UK set out a clear position ‘to end support for public financing of new coal-fired power plants overseas, except in rare circumstances.’ This ban has fostered debate about whether similar positions should follow for other fossil fuels such as natural gas, specifically in the context of ICF funding. Similar debates are taking place in other countries such as Germany and Norway, and are informing the implementation of international facilities such as the Green Climate Fund.     

From burden-sharing to opportunity-sharing: unlocking the climate negotiations

In conventional thinking on climate negotiations, traditional fossil fuel-based economic growth is coupled with carbon emissions, thus mitigation has been regarded as a burden on economic growth. The scarcity within the global emission budget and the interpretation of climate change as ‘global public goods’ have led climate change negotiations into a burden-sharing deadlock. However, some recent economics studies suggest that mitigation could actually promote local economic growth opportunities; consequently increasing the incentives for unilateral mitigation actions. This article highlights the implications for the strategies of unlocking the climate negotiations deadlock. Following an explanation of how climate change negotiations have led to a burden-sharing game and have become a deadlock, some new ways of thinking (based on the emerging literature) are used to suggest how mitigation could promote local economic growth.Policy relevanceOne policy implication is the need to change the current mindset in global climate change negotiations. The current framing of burden-sharing can be abandoned in favour of opportunity-sharing. This more positive approach will stimulate progress on climate action. Therefore, green growth should be situated at the heart of post-2020 climate change regime. A new two-track architecture is proposed for achieving the transformation as a combined top-down and bottom-up approach. A lower legally binding target based on equity principles of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) could form a more politically realistic and inclusive basis for participation. To complement this, a green growth club would promote a higher voluntary global ambition and accelerate mitigation.     

The impact of the unilateral EU commitment on the stability of international climate agreements

The negotiation strategy of the European Union was analysed with respect to the formation of an international climate agreement for the post-2012 era. Game theory was employed to explore the incentives for key players in the climate policy arena to join future climate agreements. A ?20% unilateral commitment strategy by the EU was compared with a multilateral ?30% emission reduction strategy for all Annex-B countries. Using a numerical integrated assessment climate—economy simulation model, we found that leakage, in the sense of strategic policy reactions on emissions, was negligible. The EU strategy to reduce emissions by 30% (compared with 1990 levels) by 2020, if other Annex-B countries follow suit, does not induce the participation of the USA with a comparable reduction commitment. However, we argue that the original EU proposal can be reshaped so as to stabilize a larger and more ambitious climate coalition than the Kyoto Protocol in its first commitment period.