An overview of domestic aspects in US climate policy

The article shows how domestic aspects influence the United States national and international climate policy. To accomplish the task, the authors analyzes the discussions when Bill Clinton was ruling the country, a time during which global discussions were forwarded. The paper recalls the debate in the Bush administration and the growing polarization since Barack Obama took office.

International Climate Finance and its Influence on Fairness and Policy

27 p.

The Private Provision of International Impure Public Goods: the Case of Climate Policy

33 p.

EU Performance in the International Climate Negotiations in 2013: Scope for Improvement. IES Policy Brief Issue 2014/01/January 2014

Summary. The European Union (EU) has long been an important player and even a leader in the international cooperation on climate change. In 2013, preparations for a new global climate agreement in 2015 moved centre stage in the international negotiations. This policy brief assesses the EU’s performance in 2013 culminating in the Warsaw conference in November 2013. We find that the EU was actively engaged in the negotiations and pursued partially ambitious/progressive policy objectives, which it was partly successful in realising. The policy brief argues that international EU leadership for a 2015 agreement requires (1) building an international leadership alliance including the EU and other progressive countries and (2) serious homework by the EU to advance domestic climate mitigation efforts both by 2020 and 2030, and to enhance its position on climate finance.

A regulatory analysis of international climate change regulation

The political challenges impeding the negotiation of a comprehensive multilateral agreement on international climate change have received a great deal of attention. A question that has gone somewhat overlooked is what essential components an effective regulatory scheme to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should contain. The objective of this article is to examine the regulatory architecture of current international arrangements relating to global climate change regulation. A systematic analysis of the structure, substantive composition, and administrative characteristics of the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol is undertaken. The analytical standard against which the agreements are examined is whether current international regulatory arrangements satisfy the basic requirements of regulatory coherence. The analysis identifies how the present scheme consists of a complex institutional structure that lacks a substantive regulatory core. The implications of the absence of functional and effective mechanisms to govern greenhouse gas emission reductions are considered in relation to the principles of good regulatory design. This, in turn, provides useful insights into how a better regulatory scheme might be designed.

Opportunities for forest finance under the International climate change regime

The international climate change regime has the potential to increase revenue available for forest restoration projects in Commonwealth nations. There are three mechanisms which could be used to fund forest projects aimed at forest conservation, forest restoration and sustainable forest management. The first forest funding opportunity arises under the clean development mechanism, a flexibility mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol. The clean development mechanism allows Annex I parties (industrialised nations) to invest in emission reduction activities in non-Annex 1 (developing countries) and the establishment of forest sinks is an eligible clean development mechanism activity. Secondly, parties to the Kyoto Protocol are able to include sustainable forest management activities in their national carbon accounting. The international rules concerning this are called the Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry Guidelines. Thirdly, it is anticipated that at the upcoming Copenhagen negotiations that a Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) instrument will be created. This will provide a direct funding mechanism for those developing countries with tropical forests. Payments made under a REDD arrangement will be based upon the developing country with tropical forest cover agreeing to protect and conserve a designated forest estate. These three funding options available under the international climate change regime demonstrate that there is potential for forest finance within the regime. These opportunities are however hindered by a number of technical and policy barriers which prevent the ability of the regime to significantly increase funding for forest projects. There are two types of carbon markets, compliance carbon markets (Kyoto based) and voluntary carbon markets. Voluntary carbon markets are more flexible then compliance markets and as such offer potential to increase revenue available for sustainable forest projects.

The Rise of the BASIC Group Within the International Climate Regime : The Challenge of Ensuring Equitable Mitigation Obligations

The chapter examines the current emission reduction obligations within the climate regime. It looks at the formation and rise of the BASIC negotiation group within the international climate COP negotiations and examines the role that BASIC nations are now playing shaping international mitigation policy.

The adoption of ecosystem-based adaptation in the international climate agenda

4 p.

International Support of Climate Change Policies in Developing Countries: Strategic, Moral and Fairness Aspects

33 p.

Designing Climate Mitigation Policy

This paper provides an exhaustive review of critical issues in the design of climate mitigation policy by pulling together key findings and controversies from diverse literatures on mitigation costs, damage valuation, policy instrument choice, technological innovation, and international climate policy. We begin with the broadest issue of how high assessments suggest the near and medium term price on greenhouse gases would need to be, both under cost-effective stabilization of global climate and under net benefit maximization or Pigouvian emissions pricing. The remainder of the paper focuses on the appropriate scope of regulation, issues in policy instrument choice, complementary technology policy, and international policy architectures.

Intertwined ocean and climate: implications for international climate negotiations

The atmosphere and ocean are two components of the Earth system that are essential for life, yet humankind is altering both. Contemporary climate change is now a well-identified problem: anthropogenic causes, disturbance in extreme events patterns, gradual environmental changes, widespread impacts on life and natural resources, and multiple threats to human societies all around the world. But part of the problem remains largely unknown outside the scientific community: significant changes are also occurring in the ocean, threatening life and its sustainability on Earth. This Policy Brief explains the significance of these changes in the ocean. It is based on a scientific paper recently published in Science (Gattuso et al., 2015), which synthesizes recent and future changes to the ocean and its ecosystems, as well as to the goods and services they provide to humans. Two contrasting CO2 emission scenarios are considered: the high emissions scenario (also known as “business-as-usual” and as the Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5, RCP8.5) and a stringent emissions scenario (RCP2.6) consistent with the Copenhagen Accord1 of keeping mean global temperature increase below 2°C in 2100.

Breaking the impasse: towards a new regime for international climate governance

The reality of the current international order makes it imperative that a just and effective climate regime balance the historical responsibility of developed countries with the increasing absolute emissions from many developing nations. In this short outlook article, key pillars are proposed for a new international climate architecture that envisions replacing the current annex system with two new annexes –Annex α, for countries with high current emissions and historically high emissions, and Annex β, for countries with high current emissions and historically low emissions. Countries in both annexes would implement legally binding targets under this framework. Additionally, this proposal includes tweaks and revisions to funding and technology transfer mechanisms to correct for weaknesses and inequities under the current Kyoto architecture. The proposed framework stems from a belief that a top-down, international approach to climate policy remains the most effective for ensuring environmental integrity. Given the slow rate of institutional learning, reforming and improving the current system is held as a more efficient course of action than abandoning the progress already achieved. It is argued that the proposed framework effectively accommodates key equity, environmental integrity and political feasibility concerns.

Drivers of collaboration to mitigate climate change: An illustration of Swiss climate policy over 15 years

Climate change mitigation policy is driven by scientific knowledge and involves actors from the international, national and local decision-making levels. This multi-level and cross-sectoral context requires collaborative management when designing mitigation solutions over time and space. But collaboration in general policymaking settings, and particularly in the complex domain of climate mitigation, is not an easy task. This paper addresses the question of what drives collaboration among collective actors involved in climate mitigation policy. We wish to investigate whether common beliefs or power structures influence collaboration among actors. We adopt a longitudinal approach to grasp differences between the early and more advanced stages of mitigation policy design. We use survey data to investigate actors’ collaboration, beliefs and power, and apply a Stochastic Actor-oriented Model for network dynamics to three subsequent networks in Swiss climate policy between 1995 and 2012. Results show that common beliefs among actors, as well as formal power structures, have a higher impact on collaboration relations than perceived power structures. Furthermore, those effects hold true for decision-making about initial mitigation strategies, but less so for the implementation of those measures.