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.     

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.     

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.     

Compliance of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol in the first commitment period

This article provides an ex post analysis of the compliance of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol during the first commitment period (2008–2012) based on the final data for national GHG emissions and exchanges in carbon units that became available at the end of 2015. On the domestic level, among the 36 countries that fully participated in the Kyoto Protocol, only nine countries emitted higher levels of GHGs than committed and therefore had to resort to flexibility mechanisms. On the international level – i.e. after the use of flexibility mechanisms – all Annex B Parties are in compliance. Countries implemented different compliance strategies: purchasing carbon units abroad, stimulating the domestic use of carbon credits by the private sector and incentivizing domestic emission reductions through climate policies.

Overall, the countries party to the Protocol surpassed their aggregate commitment by an average 2.4 GtCO₂e yr^–1. Of the possible explanations for this overachievement, ‘hot-air’ was estimated at 2.2 GtCO₂e yr^–1, while accounting rules for land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) further removed 0.4 GtCO₂e yr^–1 from the net result excluding LULUCF. The hypothetical participation of the US and Canada would have reduced this overachievement by a net 1 GtCO₂e yr^–1. None of these factors – some of which may be deemed illegitimate – would therefore on its own have led to global non-compliance, even without use of the 0.3 GtCO₂e of annual emissions reductions generated by the Clean Development Mechanism. The impact of domestic policies and ‘carbon leakage’ – neither of which is quantitatively assessed here – should not be neglected either.

Policy relevance

Given the ongoing evolution of the international climate regime and the adoption of the Paris Agreement in December 2015, we believe that there is a need to evaluate the results of the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. To our knowledge there has been no overarching quantitative ex post assessment of the Kyoto Protocol based on the final emissions data for 2008–2012, which became available in late 2015. This article attempts to fill this gap, focusing on the domestic and international compliance of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol in the first commitment period.     

Challenges in developing effective policy for soil carbon sequestration: perspectives on additionality,leakage, and permanence

If carbon sequestration is to be a cost-effective substitute for reducing emissions then it must occur under a framework that ensures that the sequestration is additional to what would otherwise have occurred, the carbon is stored permanently, and any leakage is properly accounted for. We discuss significant challenges in meeting these requirements, including some not previously recognized. Although we focus on sequestration in soil, many of the issues covered are applicable to all types of sequestration. The common-practice method for determining additionality achieves its intention of reducing transaction costs in the short term but not in the medium to long term. Its design results in the least costly, additional abatement-measures being excluded from policy support and fails to address how, in the case of sequestration, revisions to the additionality of sequestering practices should apply not just to the future, but in theory, also retrospectively. Permanence is sometimes approximated as 100 years of sequestration. Re-release of sequestered carbon after this will not only reverse the sequestration, but may raise atmospheric carbon to higher levels than they would have been if the sequestration had never occurred. Leakage associated with sequestration practices can accumulate over time to exceed the total level of sequestration; nonetheless, adoption of such practices can be attractive to landholders, even when they are required to pay for this leakage at contemporary prices.

Policy relevance

Globally, much has been written and claimed about the ability to offset emissions with sequestration. The Australian Government plans to use sequestration to source much of the abatement required to reach its emissions targets. Designing effective policy for sequestration will be challenging politically, and will involve substantial transaction costs. Compromises in policy design intended to make sequestration attractive and reduce transaction costs can render it highly inefficient as a policy.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Cap setting and allowance allocation in China's emissions trading pilot programmes: special issues and innovative solutions

Seven emissions trading scheme (ETS) pilots have been established in China. They have introduced some unique methods to set emissions caps and allocate allowances, different from textbook models and their counterparts in the EU, California, and many other regions. This article provides a detailed introduction to the methods for cap setting and allowance allocation adopted by the pilots, and presents detailed comparisons of these methods. In terms of cap setting, the pilots adopt flexible caps that can be adjusted where necessary, which primarily depends on the outcomes of the bottom-up approach, namely aggregating the allowances allocated to participants. As for allowance allocation, the pilots not only adopt such methods as grandfathering and benchmarking, which are also widely applied in other existing schemes, but also some special methods that require ex post adjustment, such as those based on enterprises’ historical emissions intensity (including both physical quantity and added-value intensity) and current production/output. The factors influencing the design are further analysed, including the impacts of theory and experience from foreign systems, concerns about economic development, traditions regarding intensity targets and policy, constraints from data availability and preparation time, tight regulation of the electricity and heat generation sector, and concerns regarding price stability. The practice of pilots presents an improvement opportunity and a challenge for China to further balance the theoretical and practical requirements in ETS design in establishing its national system.

Policy relevance

China is piloting emissions trading in seven regions, as part of efforts to try to rely more on market-based instruments to achieve GHG emissions control targets. All seven pilots have been confronted with special issues in the design process when compared with existing foreign schemes. This article analyses in depth the special issues related to cap setting and allowance allocation and the approaches adopted to address these issues. Flexible cap setting through a bottom-up approach and different types of allocation methods with or without ex post adjustment are adopted in the pilots. The flexible and innovative approaches the pilots have developed could provide useful experience for designing the nationwide ETS in China and promoting emissions trading policy in other parts of the world.     

The impact of shale gas on the costs of climate policy

The use of shale gas is commonly considered as a low-cost option for meeting ambitious climate policy targets. This article explores global and country-specific effects of increasing global shale gas exploitation on the energy markets, on greenhouse gas emissions, and on mitigation costs. The global techno-economic partial equilibrium model POLES (Prospective Outlook on Long-term Energy Systems) is employed to compare policies which limit global warming to 2°C and baseline scenarios when the availability of shale gas is either high or low. According to the simulation results, a high availability of shale gas has rather small effects on the costs of meeting climate targets in the medium and long term. In the long term, a higher availability of shale gas increases baseline emissions of greenhouse gases for most countries and for the world, and leads to higher compliance costs for most, but not all, countries. Allowing for global trading of emission certificates does not alter these general results. In sum, these findings cast doubt on shale gas’s potential as a low-cost option for meeting ambitious global climate targets.

POLICY RELEVANCE

Many countries with a large shale gas resource base consider the expansion of local shale gas extraction as an option to reduce their GHG emissions. The findings in this article imply that a higher availability of shale gas in these countries might actually increase emissions and mitigation costs for these countries and also for the world. An increase in shale gas extraction may spur a switch from coal to gas electricity generation, thus lowering emissions. At the global level and for many countries, though, this effect is more than offset by a crowding out of renewable and nuclear energy carriers, and by lower energy prices, leading to higher emissions and higher mitigation costs in turn. These findings would warrant a re-evaluation of the climate strategy in most countries relying on the exploitation of shale gas to meet their climate targets.     

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.

     

Perceived fairness and public acceptability of carbon pricing: a review of the literature

While carbon pricing is widely seen as a crucial element of climate policy and has been implemented in many countries, it also has met with strong resistance. We provide a comprehensive overview of public perceptions of the fairness of carbon pricing and how these affect policy acceptability. To this end, we review evidence from empirical studies on how individuals judge personal, distributional and procedural aspects of carbon taxes and cap-and-trade. In addition, we examine preferences for particular redistributive and other uses of revenues generated by carbon pricing and their role in instrument acceptability. Our results indicate a high concern over distributional effects, particularly in relation to policy impacts on poor people, in turn reducing policy acceptability. In addition, people show little trust in the capacities of governments to put the revenues of carbon pricing to good use. Somewhat surprisingly, most studies do not indicate clear public preferences for using revenues to ensure fairer policy outcomes, notably by reducing its regressive effects. Instead, many people prefer using revenues for ‘environmental projects’ of various kinds. We end by providing recommendations for improving public acceptability of carbon pricing. One suggestion to increase policy acceptability is combining the redistribution of revenue to vulnerable groups with the funding for environmental projects, such as on renewable energy.

Key policy insights

• If people perceive carbon pricing instruments as fair, this increases policy acceptability and support.

• People’s satisfaction with information provided by the government about the policy instrument increases acceptability.

• While people express high concern over uneven distribution of the policy burden, they often prefer using carbon pricing revenues for environmental projects instead of compensation for inequitable outcomes.

• Recent studies find that people’s preferences shift to using revenues for making policy fairer if they better understand the functioning of carbon pricing, notably that relatively high prices of CO₂-intensive goods and services reduce their consumption.

• Combining the redistribution of revenue to support both vulnerable groups and environmental projects, such as on renewable energy, seems to most increase policy acceptability.

     

Defining deep decarbonization pathways for Switzerland: an economic evaluation

This article simulates deep decarbonization pathways for a small open economy that lacks the usual avenues for large CO₂ reductions – heavy industry and power generation. A computable general equilibrium model is used to assess the energy and economic impacts of the transition to only one ton of CO₂ emissions per capita in 2050. This represents a 76% reduction with respect to 1990 levels, while the population is expected to be 46% larger and GPD to increase by 90%. The article discusses several options and scenarios that are compatible with this emissions target and compares them with a reference scenario that extrapolates already-decided climate and energy policy instruments. We show that the ambitious target is attainable at moderate welfare costs, even if it needs very high carbon prices, and that these costs are lower when either CO₂ can be captured and sequestered or electricity consumption can be taxed sufficiently to stabilize it.

Policy relevance

In the context of COP 21, all countries must propose intended contributions that involve deep decarbonization of their economy over the next decades. This article defines and analyses such pathways for Switzerland, taking into consideration the existing energy demand and supply and also already-defined climate policies. It draws several scenarios that are compatible with a target of 1 ton of CO₂ emissions per capita in 2050. This objective is very challenging, especially with the nuclear phase out decided after the disaster in Fukushima and the political decision to balance electricity trade. Nevertheless, it is possible to design several feasible pathways that are based on different options. The economic cost is significant but affordable for the Swiss economy. The insights are relevant not only for Switzerland, but also for other industrialized countries when defining their INDCs.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Convergence of per capita carbon dioxide emissions: implications and meta-analysis

There is a rich empirical literature testing whether per capita carbon dioxide emissions tend to converge over time and across countries. This article provides a meta-analysis of the results from this research, and discusses how carbon emissions convergence may be understood in, for instance, the presence of international knowledge spillovers and policy convergence. The results display evidence of either divergence or persistent gaps at the global level, but convergence of per capita carbon dioxide emissions between richer industrialized countries. However, the results appear sensitive to the choice of data sample and choice of convergence concept, e.g. stochastic convergence versus β-convergence. Moreover, peer-reviewed studies have a higher likelihood of reporting convergence in carbon dioxide emissions compared to non-refereed work.

POLICY RELEVANCE

The empirical basis for an egalitarian rule of equal emissions per capita in the design of global climate agreements is not solid; this supports the need to move beyond single allocation rules, and increase knowledge about the impacts of combined scenarios. However, even in the context of the 2015 Paris Agreement with its emphasis on voluntary contributions and ‘national circumstances’, different equity-based principles could serve as useful points of reference for how the remaining carbon budget should be allocated.     

Aligning emissions trading and feed-in tariffs in China

In 2013, China launched its domestic pilot emissions trading scheme (ETS) as a cost-effective strategy to reduce CO₂ emissions. Theoretically, the ETS can interact with the feed-in tariffs (FITs) applied to renewable energies (REN). This article presents a simple method to demonstrate how FITs can be adjusted based on the evolution of ETS carbon prices in order to provide a cost-effective climate policy package in China. First, by using provincial data and wind and solar power as examples, it calculates the implicit carbon prices that FITs generate in different Chinese provinces and finds that they are much higher than current carbon prices in the pilot ETS. This shows the necessity of using both instruments to guarantee current level incentives to develop REN for climate change purposes, at least in the short and medium terms. Second, by keeping the annual total carbon price level stable (the sum of the implicit FIT carbon price and the ETS carbon price), and taking into account the cost evolution of REN development, this article demonstrates, for the 2018–2020 period, that FIT should decrease at an annual rate of 3.04–4.63% (for wind) and 7.84–8.87% (for solar) based on different growth rates for progressive national ETS carbon prices.

Policy relevance

There are a number of studies and debates on the interactions between climate policies in Europe in particular, ETS and subsidies for REN. The key issue is that a climate policy package should be cost-efficient and the implementation of one policy should not jeopardise the performance of another. For a country like China, a considerable scale effect on climate target achievement and total cost savings could be produced by the careful design of the climate policy package. FIT and ETS, which are cost-efficient policies if implemented separately, will very probably constitute a major climate policy package in the future in China, which is aiming to limit the use of command-and-control policies. So far, there is some debate on how to reduce FIT for wind power in China due to development cost changes. But discussions are lacking on the linkage between FIT and ETS. This paper fills this gap.     

Policy without politics: technocratic control of climate change adaptation policy making in Nepal

As developing countries around the world formulate policies to address climate change, concerns remain as to whether the voices of those most exposed to climate risk are represented in those policies. Developing countries face significant challenges for contextualizing global-scale scientific research into national political dynamics and downscaling global frameworks to sub-national levels, where the most affected are presumed to live. This article critiques the ways in which the politics of representation and climate science are framed and pursued in the process of climate policy development, and contributes to an understanding of the relative effectiveness of globally framed, generic policy mechanisms in vulnerable and politically volatile contexts. Based on this analysis, it also outlines opportunities for the possibility of improving climate policy processes to contest technocratic framing and generic international adaptation solutions.

Policy relevance

Nepal's position as one of the countries most at risk from climate change in the Himalayas has spurred significant international support to craft climate policy responses over the past few years. Focusing on the National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) and the Climate Change Policy, this article examines the extent to which internationally and scientifically framed climate policy in Nepal recognizes the unfolding political mobilizations around the demand for a representative state and equitable adaptation to climate risks. This is particularly important in Nepal, where political unrest in the post-conflict transition after the end of the civil war in 2006 has focused around struggles over representation for those historically on the political margins. Arguing that vulnerability to climate risk is produced in conjunction with social and political conditions, and that not everyone in the same locality is equally vulnerable, we demonstrate the multi-faceted nature of the politics of representation for climate policy making in Nepal. However, so far, this policy making has primarily been shaped through a technocratic framing that avoids political contestations and downplays the demand for inclusive and deliberative processes. Based on this analysis, we identify the need for a flexible, contextually grounded, and multi-scalar approach to political representation while also emphasizing the need for downscaling climate science that can inform policy development and implementation to achieve fair and effective adaptation to climate change.