Subjective elements in climate policy advice

Subjective elements are an inevitable component of scientific advice on climate policies. Good practice warrants that the level of assumption underlying subjective elements be parsimonious, that their effects on policy decisions be identified, and that policy relevant variables be communicated with appropriate levels of precision. In the case of climate sensitivity, the level of precision is intrinsically difficult to quantify. There is no ‘true’ value of climate sensitivity to be discovered. Rather, best practice consists of the application of multiple methods to estimate the quantity. Best practice provides confidence that some values of climate sensitivity are more likely than others. This lends support to the notion of weighting climate sensitivity values, though the appropriate precision appears to be less than that implied by use of a probability density function (pdf) and greater than that implied by use of a simple range. Use of both a pdf and a range in this case can provide information about likely outcomes and possible extremes.     

Building a regime for climate protection: Finland and international climate policy

The effective management of climate change on a national as well as an international level requires close co-operation between the scientific community and the political sector. Climate change first became a major subject of scientific inquiry in the early 1980s, and real political interest in the issue was awakened towards the end of that decade. In the last few years, the dialogue between the scientific community and the political sector has increased considerably. As a result, climate change is today one of the most significant areas in environmental research and international environmental policy alike.This paper examines the emergence and consolidation of international climate change regime. The theory of regime building is used as discussed by Young (1989). International Cooperation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca. The paper begins with an outline of the historical emergence of climate research and climate policy. This is followed by a discussion of the history and development of the Rio Convention, with a look at the latest developments in international climate politics. The next section begins with an examination of the foundations and present strategies of Finnish climate policy, which is used as a case study, and the paper concludes with an assessment of the current state of Finnish climate policy, illustrating the problems of compliance individual countries face when adopting the norms and principles of the regime.     

Beyond Copenhagen: a realistic climate policy in a fragmented world

In this paper we argue that the financial provisions of the Copenhagen Accord, if used primarily to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions, could compensate the lack of more energetic action on the domestic mitigation side. In order to maximize the mitigation potential, the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund (CGCF) should be transformed into the International Bank for Emissions Allowance Acquisition (IBEAA) envisaged by Bradford (2008). We estimate that 50 percent of the CGCF in 2020 (50 US billions) could finance from 2.1 to 3.3?Gt CO2-eq emission reductions, depending on the domestic mitigation effort of Annex I and Non-Annex I countries. We construct a matrix that shows the level of GHGs emissions in 2020 under all possible combinations of abatement pledges and international mitigation financing, thus highlighting a rich set of options to reach the same level of GHGs emissions in 2020.     

Reaching a climate agreement: compensating for energy market effects of climate policy

Because of large economic and environmental asymmetries among world regions and the incentive to free ride, an international climate regime with broad participation is hard to reach. Most of the proposed regimes are based on an allocation of emissions rights that is perceived as fair. Yet, there are also arguments to focus more on the actual welfare implications of different regimes and to focus on a ‘fair’ distribution of resulting costs. In this article, the computable general equilibrium model DART is used to analyse the driving forces of welfare implications in different scenarios in line with the 2?°C target. These include two regimes that are often presumed to be ‘fair’, namely a harmonized international carbon tax and a cap and trade system based on the convergence of per capita emissions rights, and also an ‘equal loss’ scenario where welfare losses relative to a business-as-usual scenario are equal for all major world regions. The main finding is that indirect energy market effects are a major driver of welfare effects and that the ‘equal loss’ scenario would thus require large transfer payments to energy exporters to compensate for welfare losses from lower world energy demand and prices.

Policy relevance

A successful future climate regime requires ‘fair’ burden sharing. Many proposed regimes start from ethical considerations to derive an allocation of emissions reduction requirements or emissions allowances within an international emissions trading scheme. Yet, countries also consider the expected economic costs of a regime that are also driven by other factors besides allowance allocation. Indeed, in simplified lab experiments, successful groups are characterized by sharing costs proportional to wealth. This article shows that the major drivers of welfare effects are reduced demand for fossil energy and reduced fossil fuel prices, which implies that (1) what is often presumed to be a fair allocation of emissions allowances within an international emissions trading scheme leads to a very uneven distribution of economic costs and (2) aiming for equal relative losses for all regions requires large compensation to fossil fuel exporters, as argued, for example, by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).     

Post-2012 climate policy dilemmas: a review of proposals

This article assesses a wide range of alternative proposals for post-2012 international climate policy regimes. We believe that these proposals will serve as a basis for debates about how to configure post-2012 climate policy. The article characterizes and assesses the policy proposals along the lines of five key policy dilemmas. We argue that (1) many proposals have ideas on how to reduce emissions, but fewer have a solution on how to stimulate technical innovation; (2) many proposals formulate climate policy in isolation, while there are fewer proposals that try to mainstream climate policies in other policy areas; (3) many proposals advocate market-based solutions, while fewer realize that there are certain drawbacks to this solution especially at the international level; (4) most proposals have a preference for a UN-based regime, while a more fragmented regime, based on regional and sectoral arrangements may be emerging; and (5) most proposals have ideas about mitigation, but not many have creative ideas on how to integrate mitigation with adaptation.     

Distributional choices in EU climate policy: 20 years of policy practice

The distributional choices of the EU in three policy phases, spanning 20 years, are examined: the negotiations on emissions reduction targets for the EU15 under the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, the negotiation of National Allocation Plans for Phase II of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) between 2008 and 2012, and the formulation of the 2008 Climate and Energy Package for the period 2013–2020. A flexible and pragmatic framework, consisting of the normative principles of capacity, responsibility, equality, and need, is used to elucidate the indicators and policies used in deciding how the EU Member States are to share the cost of meeting climate policy objectives. The analysis extends the literature by applying a common analytical framework across the three different policy phases and provides a structured basis for the assessment of what the EU and other jurisdictions can learn from them.

Policy relevance

Distributing the cost of climate policy is a key policy concern, both at the domestic and international level. The EU has more than 20 years of policy experience with such distributional choices and is also preparing the next steps of its policy, where distributional choices will again be central. A framework is developed to assess the modalities and rationale for EU distributional choices in order to inform the future climate policy of the EU and other jurisdictions.     

Thirteen plus one: a comparison of global climate policy architectures

We critically review the Kyoto Protocol and thirteen alternative policy architectures for addressing the threat of global climate change. We employ six criteria to evaluate the policy proposals: environmental outcome, dynamic efficiency, cost-effectiveness, equity, flexibility in the presence of new information, and incentives for participation and compliance. The Kyoto Protocol does not fare well on a number of criteria, but none of the alternative proposals fare well along all six dimensions. We identify several major themes among the alternative proposals: Kyoto is “too little, too fast”; developing countries (DCs) should play a more substantial role and receive incentives to participate; implementation should focus on market-based approaches, especially those with price mechanisms; and participation and compliance incentives are inadequately addressed by most proposals. Our investigation reveals tensions among several of the evaluative criteria, such as between environmental outcome and efficiency, and between cost-effectiveness and incentives for participation and compliance.     

Thirteen plus one: a comparison of global climate policy architectures

We critically review the Kyoto Protocol and thirteen alternative policy architectures for addressing the threat of global climate change. We employ six criteria to evaluate the policy proposals: environmental outcome, dynamic efficiency, cost-effectiveness, equity, flexibility in the presence of new information, and incentives for participation and compliance. The Kyoto Protocol does not fare well on a number of criteria, but none of the alternative proposals fare well along all six dimensions. We identify several major themes among the alternative proposals: Kyoto is “too little, too fast”; developing countries (DCs) should play a more substantial role and receive incentives to participate; implementation should focus on market-based approaches, especially those with price mechanisms; and participation and compliance incentives are inadequately addressed by most proposals. Our investigation reveals tensions among several of the evaluative criteria, such as between environmental outcome and efficiency, and between cost-effectiveness and incentives for participation and compliance.     

Conceptualizations of justice in climate policy

Distributive justice in climate change has been of interest both to the ethics and to the climate policy communities, but the two have remained relatively isolated. By combining an applied ethics approach with a focus on the details of a wide range of proposed international climate policies, this article proposes two arguments. First, three categories of proposals are identified, each characterized by its assumptions about the nature of the ‘problem’ of climate change, the burdens that this problem imposes, and its application of distribution rules. Each category presents potential implications for distributive justice. The second, related, argument is that assumptions about technology, sovereignty, substitution and public perceptions of ethics shape the distributive justice outcomes of proposed policies even though these areas have largely been overlooked in discussions of the subject in either literature. The final lesson of this study is that the definition, measurement and distribution of burdens are all critical variables for distributive justice in climate policy.     

Racing climate change: Collaboration and conflict in California's global climate change policy arena

Media accounts routinely refer to California's Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, as “landmark” climate change legislation. On its surface, this label is an accurate reflection of the state's forward-thinking stance across many environmental issues including pesticides, toxic substances, solid waste, and air quality. For all its promise, however, AB 32 can also be considered a low point in the landscape of conflict between state environmental regulators and California's environmental justice movement. While the legislation included several provisions to address the procedural and distributive dimensions of environmental justice, the implementation of AB 32 has been marked by heated conflict. The most intense conflicts over AB 32 revolve around the primacy of market mechanisms such as “cap and trade.” This article examines the drivers and the manifestations of these dynamics of collaboration and conflict between environmental justice advocates and state regulators, and pays particular attention to the scalar and racialized quality of the neoliberal discourse. The contentiousness of climate change politics in California offers scholars and practitioners around the world a cautionary tale of how the best intentions for integrating environmental justice principles into climate change policy do not necessarily translate into implementation and how underlying racialized fractures can upend collaboration between state and social movement actors.     

The crucial role of policy surveillance in international climate policy

An extensive literature shows that information-creating mechanisms enhance the transparency of and can support participation and compliance in international agreements. This paper draws from game theory, international relations, and legal scholarship to make the case for how transparency through policy surveillance can facilitate more effective international climate change policy architecture. I draw lessons from policy surveillance in multilateral economic, environmental, and national security contexts to inform a critical evaluation of the historic practice of monitoring and reporting under the global climate regime. This assessment focuses on how surveillance produces evidence to inform policy design, enables comparisons of mitigation effort, and illustrates the adequacy of the global effort in climate agreements. I also describe how the institution of policy surveillance can facilitate a variety of climate policy architectures. This evaluation of policy surveillance suggests that transparency is necessary for global climate policy architecture.     

Navigating the dilemmas of climate policy in Europe: evidence from policy evaluation studies

Climate change is widely recognised as a ‘wicked’ policy problem. Agreeing and implementing governance responses is proving extremely difficult. Policy makers in many jurisdictions now emphasise their ambition to govern using the best available evidence. One obvious source of such evidence is the evaluations of the performance of existing policies. But to what extent do these evaluations provide insights into the difficult dilemmas that governors typically encounter? We address this question by reviewing the content of 262 evaluation studies of European climate policies in the light of six kinds of dilemma found in the governance literature. We are interested in what these studies say about the performance of European climate policies and in their capacity to inform evidence-based policy-making. We find that the evaluations do arrive at common findings: that climate change is framed as a problem of market and/or state failure; that voluntary measures tend to be ineffective; that market-based instruments tend to be regressive; that EU-level policies have driven climate policies in the latecomer EU Member States; and that lack of monitoring and weak enforcement are major obstacles to effective policy implementation. However, we also conclude that the evidence base these studies represent is surprisingly weak for such a high profile area. There is too little systematic climate policy evaluation work in the EU to support systematic evidence-based policy making. This reduces the scope for sound policy making in the short run and is a constraint to policy learning in the longer term.     

Public policy, institutional investors and climate change: a UK case-study

Institutional investors have two important roles to play in encouraging companies to address the risks and take advantage of the opportunities presented by climate change. The first is through using their influence as shareholders to encourage companies to adopt more proactive approaches to managing the risks and opportunities presented by climate change. The second is through explicitly factoring climate change risks and opportunities into ‘mainstream’ investment analysis processes. While there is growing investor activity on the former, the integration of climate change into investment analysis remains confined to sectors where there are strong government incentives (e.g. for renewable energy) or where greenhouse gas emissions have a market price. This article reviews the evolution of UK institutional investor interest in climate change from 1990 to 2005, focusing in particular on the relative contributions of ‘soft’ policy measures such as information-disclosure and awareness raising, and ‘hard’ policy measures such as regulation and market-based instruments. The article concludes that, over this period, soft policy measures played an important role in encouraging investors to discuss climate change issues with companies, but had minimal influence on investment decisions. It was only with the introduction of hard policy measures that climate change started to be systematically factored into investment analysis. The article canvasses the implications of these findings for government efforts in the UK and elsewhere to encourage investors to play a more proactive role in the climate change debate. It also considers the role that institutional investors themselves can play in strengthening public policy measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.     

Drivers of national climate policy

Patterns of national climate policy performance and their implications for the geopolitics of climate change are examined. An overview of levels of emissions performance across countries is first provided. Substantial changes in emissions trends over time are documented, notably with GHG emissions trajectories, which are shaped less and less by the developed/developing country divide. Various patterns of policy convergence and divergence in the types of policies states implement are then surveyed. Four broad types of explanation that may account for these trends are then explored: (1) variation in the institutional form of country-level governance regimes, (2) patterns of dependence on fossil fuel energy, (3) broad systemic differences among states (specifically in their population densities, carbon intensity, and per capita incomes, and (4) variations in the traditions of economic intervention by states. The article contributes to the growing body of work on comparative climate policy, and provides a first attempt at exploring the comparative politics of instrument choice. The analysis challenges the continued importance of a North–South divide for the future of climate policy, thus reinforcing a sense of the ‘new geopolitics’ of climate change. Some of the implications of the analysis for debates about the form of future international agreement on mitigation policy are also explored.

Policy relevance

The article contributes to the understanding of the variety of institutional conditions under which policy makers develop policy and thus the constraints and opportunities for the design of international agreements under these conditions.     

Alternative climate policy pathways in the US

Although it is likely that the political–economic coalition required for implementing a federal cap-and-trade programme for GHGs in the US is now sufficiently strong, the structural impediments that have prevented its legislative passage remain impressively durable and can be expected to continue to lay waste to congressional proposals for the foreseeable future. Indeed, given the complex history of environmental policy gridlock in Washington since the early 1980s, any expectations that a cap-and-trade programme could have been realistically achieved through the traditional legislative passage in Congress are fundamentally misplaced. Building on previous research, it is argued that – as with most other forms of environmental policy in the US over the past three decades – a national carbon market is more plausible given alternative policy pathways, which if taken are capable of circumventing the Federal Congress altogether. In particular, the interaction between litigation against the federal government and the ‘rulemaking’ authority possessed by the Executive Branch provides the potential space for the current administration to unilaterally establish a model rule for a national carbon-trading programme.

Policy relevance

This article aims to contribute to American climate policy debates by re-thinking the policy mechanisms most capable of establishing a national carbon market in the US. By taking into account the array of structural factors that have prevented the legislative passage of such a programme in federal Congress, a range of alternative policy ‘pathways’ is considered that have historically allowed progressive environmental policies to endure in Washington (despite increased Congressional gridlock over the past few decades). Two specific alternative strategies and the relationship between them are assessed: the use of litigation to impose legal obligations on federal agencies to regulate effluents, and the use of executive authority to define the nature and scope of environmental regulation. The administration's current potential to unilaterally develop a model-rule for a cap-and-trade programme under the Clean Air Act is emphasized, and the political implications of such a strategy are considered.     

Four intermediate goals: a methodology for evaluation of climate mitigation policy packages

This study aimed to evaluate climate mitigation policy packages in various countries’ nationally determined contributions by introducing four intermediate policy goals: decarbonizing energy, improving energy efficiency, reducing demand for energy services, and enhancing carbon sinks and reducing emissions of non-CO₂ gases. The methodology was examined by using data of China, Germany, Japan, the UK, and the US. Climate mitigation policies introduced between 1990 and 2015 in the five countries were categorized into four intermediate policy goals. Six indicators were introduced to measure actual outcomes, each representing one of the four intermediate policy goals. A comparison between the policy categorizations and the indicator outputs led to the conclusion that the number of policies implemented partially reflects the countries’ efforts to achieve specific policy goals, even though the stringency of each policy was not taken into account. This comparison was also useful in identifying key policies that were effective in achieving policy goals, even if there was a relatively small number of policies. The methodology was useful in generating policy recommendations to fulfil all the four intermediate goals in a balanced manner.

POLICY RELEVANCE

The Paris Agreement, adopted at the 21st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP21) in December 2015, calls for all countries to prepare, communicate, and maintain successive nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and pursue domestic mitigation measures with the aim of achieving the objectives of such contributions (Article 4.2). Under this new regime, methodologies to assess policy implementation have become increasingly important, especially for the post-2020 period. The methodology developed in this study is simple enough for any country to use and was effective in grasping the overall characteristics of the climate mitigation policy package in each country or region studied. The study recommends that the UNFCCC create a rule requesting countries to submit estimates of population, GDP, total energy demand, share of renewables, and other relevant factors for the target year when they submit their successive intended NDCs.     

Interactions between European agricultural policy and climate change: a Slovenian case study

This article analyses the interactions between agricultural policy measures in the EU and the factors affecting GHG emissions from agriculture on the one hand, and the adaptation of agriculture to climate change on the other. To this end, the article uses Slovenia as a case study, assessing the extent to which Slovenian agricultural policy is responding to the challenges of climate change. All agricultural policy measures related to the 2007–2013 programming period were analysed according to a new methodological approach that is based on a qualitative (expert evaluation) and a quantitative (budgetary transfers validation) assessment. A panel of experts reached consensus on the key factors through which individual measures affect climate change, in which direction and how significantly. Data on budgetary funds for each measure were used as weights to assess their relative importance. The results show that there are not many measures in (Slovenian) agricultural policy that are directly aimed at reducing GHG emissions from agriculture or at adaptation to climate change. Nevertheless, most affect climate change, and their impact is far from negligible. Current measures have both positive and negative impacts, but overall the positive impacts prevail. Measures that involve many beneficiaries and more budgetary funds had the strongest impact on aggregate assessments. In light of climate change, agricultural policy should pay more attention to measures that are aimed at raising the efficiency of animal production, as it is the principal source of GHG emissions from agriculture.

Policy relevance

Agricultural policy must respond to climate challenges and climate change impact assessment must be included in the process of forming European agricultural policy. Agricultural policy measures that contribute to the reduction of emissions and adaptation, whilst acting in synergy with other environmental, economic and social goals, should be promoted. The approach used in this study combines qualitative and quantitative data, yielding an objective assessment of the climate impact of agricultural policy measures and providing policy makers with a tool for either ex ante or ex post evaluations of climate-relevant policy measures.