The Committee on Climate Change: A policy analysis

Domestic action on climate change is increasingly important in the light of the difficulties with international agreements and requires a combination of solutions, in terms of institutions and policy instruments. One way of achieving government carbon policy goals may be the creation of an independent body to advise, set or monitor policy. This paper critically assesses the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), which was created in 2008 as an independent body to help move the UK towards a low carbon economy. We look at the motivation for its creation in terms of: information provision, advice, monitoring, or policy delegation. In particular we consider its ability to overcome a time inconsistency problem by comparing and contrasting it with another independent body, the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England. In practice the Committee on Climate Change appears to be the ‘inverse’ of the Monetary Policy Committee, in that it advises on what the policy goal should be rather than being responsible for achieving it. The CCC incorporates both advisory and monitoring functions to inform government and achieve a credible carbon policy over a long time frame. This is a similar framework to that adopted by Stern (2006), but the CCC operates on a continuing basis. We therefore believe the CCC is best viewed as a "Rolling Stern plus" body. There are also concerns as to how binding the budgets actually are and how the budgets interact with other energy policy goals and instruments, such as Renewable Obligation Contracts and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. The CCC could potentially be reformed to include: an explicit information provision role; consumption-based accounting of emissions and control of a policy instrument such as a balanced-budget carbon tax.

Time is Running Out: The 2°C Target and Optimal Climate Policies

The quintessence of recent natural science studies is that the 2 degrees C target can only be achieved with massive emission reductions in the next few years. The central twist of this paper is the addition of this limited time to act into a non-perpetual real options framework analysing optimal climate policy under uncertainty. The window-of-opportunity modelling setup shows that the limited time to act may spark a trend reversal in the direction of low-carbon alternatives. However, the implementation of a climate policy is evaded by high uncertainty about possible climate pathways.

Unilateral Emissions Mitigation, Spillovers, and Global Learning

What's the role of unilateral measures in global climate change mitigation in a post-Durban, post 2012 global policy regime? We argue that under conditions of preference heterogeneity, unilateral emissions mitigation at a subnational level may exist even when a nation is unwilling to commit to emission cuts. As the fraction of individuals unilaterally cutting emissions in a global strongly connected network of countries evolves over time, learning the costs of cutting emissions can result in the adoption of such activities globally and we establish that this will indeed happen under certain assumptions. We analyze the features of a policy proposal that could accelerate convergence to a low carbon world in the presence of global learning.

Incorporating jurisdiction issues into regional carbon accounts under production and consumption accounting principles

Despite increased public interest, policymakers have been slow to enact targets based on limiting emissions under full consumption accounting measures (such as carbon footprints). This paper argues that this may be due to the fact that policymakers in one jurisdiction do not have control over production technologies used in other jurisdictions. The paper uses a regional input-output framework and data derived on carbon dioxide emissions by industry (and households) to examine regional accountability for emissions generation. In doing so, we consider two accounting methods that permit greater accountability of regional private and public (household and government) final consumption as the main driver of regional emissions generation, while retaining focus on the local production technology and consumption decisions that fall under the jurisdiction of regional policymakers. We propose that these methods permit an attribution of emissions generation that is likely to be of more use to regional policymakers than a full global footprint analysis.