scholarly journals A Different Perspective for Global Climate Policy: Combining Burden Sharing and Climate Protection

2000 ◽  
pp. 305-313 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janina Onigkeit ◽  
Joseph Alcamo
Keyword(s):  
Climate Policy ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Burden Sharing ◽  
Climate Protection

Ancillary Benefits of Climate Policy / Sekundäre Nutzen der Klimapolitik

2004 ◽  
Vol 224 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anil Markandya ◽  
Dirk T.G. Rübbelke
Keyword(s):  
Climate Policy ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Positive Influence ◽  
Climate Protection ◽  
Ancillary Benefits ◽  
Protection Measures ◽  
Ghg Reduction ◽  
Quantitative Results ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Reduction Cost

SummaryThe benefits of climate policy normally consist exclusively of the reduced impacts of climate change, i.e., the policy’s primary aim. Our analysis of benefits of climate policy suggests, however, that researchers and policymakers should also take account of ancillary benefits, e.g., in the shape of improved air quality induced by climate protection measures. A consideration of both, primary and ancillary benefits, has a positive influence on global climate protection efforts, e.g., because the regional impact of ancillary effects attenuates easy-riding motives of countries with respect to their provision of climate protection. In this article, we analyze the nature of ancillary benefits, present an overview of European assessment studies and explain possible methods to estimate ancillary benefits. Main differences between primary and ancillary benefits are pointed out. Furthermore, we stress the major influences of ancillary benefits on climate policy. Finally, we present one of the first models integrating primary and ancillary benefits. By this model quantitative results are calculated with respect to ancillary benefits in the UK considering different greenhouse gas (GHG) control levels. It is observed that the ancillary benefits could cover about 4 percent of the full GHG reduction cost.

scholarly journals Unilateral or Reciprocal Climate Policy? Experimental Evidence from China

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 152-171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Bernauer ◽  
Liang Dong ◽  
Liam F. McGrath ◽  
Irina Shaymerdenova ◽  
Haibin Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Climate Policy ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Public Support ◽  
Burden Sharing ◽  
Negative Externalities ◽  
Ghg Mitigation ◽  
Ghg Reduction ◽  
Collective Action Problems ◽  
International Diplomacy ◽  
Traditional Approaches

The traditional political economy account of global climate change governance directs our attention to fundamental collective action problems associated with global public goods provision, resulting from positive or negative externalities as well as freeriding. The governance architecture of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol uses the traditional approaches of international diplomacy for addressing such challenges: legally binding commitments based on principles of reciprocity and (fair) cost/burden sharing via formalized carbon-budgeting. Yet, the 2015 Paris Agreement has essentially abandoned this approach, as it now operates on the basis of internationally coordinated and monitored unilateralism. On the presumption that public opinion matters for government policy, we examine how citizens view this shift in climate policy from reciprocity to unilateralism, after many years of exposure to strong reciprocity rhetoric by governments and stakeholders. To that end, we fielded a survey experiment in China, the world’s largest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter. The results show that there is, perhaps surprisingly, strong and robust public support for unilateral, non-reciprocal climate policy. To the extent China is interested in pushing ahead with ambitious and thus costly GHG reduction policies, our results suggest that China can leverage segments of public support in order to overcome domestic obstacles to GHG mitigation policies.

Comments: Carbon Tariffs - Fair Incentives for Change?

2021 ◽  
Vol 73 (05) ◽  
pp. 8-8
Author(s):  
Pam Boschee
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Climate Policy ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Carbon Price ◽  
Carbon Leakage ◽  
Carbon Taxes ◽  
Trading Systems ◽  
Climate Policies ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Carbon Tariff

Carbon credits, carbon taxes, and emissions trading systems are familiar terms in discussions about limiting global warming, the Paris Agreement, and net-zero emissions goals. A more recent addition to the glossary of climate policy is “carbon tariff.” While the concept is not new, it recently surfaced in nascent policymaking in the EU. In 2019, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen proposed a “carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM)” as part of a proposed green deal. In March, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on a World Trade Organization (WTO)-compatible CBAM. A carbon tariff, or the EU’s CBAM, is a tax applied to carbon-intensive imports. Countries that have pledged to be more ambitious in reducing emissions—and in some cases have implemented binding targets—may impose carbon costs on their own businesses. Being eyed now are cross-border or overseas businesses that make products in countries in which no costs are imposed for emissions, resulting in cheaper carbon-intensive goods. Those products are exported to the countries aiming for reduced emissions. The concern lies in the risk of locally made goods becoming unfairly disadvantaged against competitors that are not taking similar steps to deal with climate change. A carbon tariff is being considered to level the playing field: local businesses in countries applying a tariff can better compete as climate policies evolve and are adopted around the world. Complying with WTO rules to ensure fair treatment, the CBAM will be imposed only on high-emitting industries that compete directly with local industries paying a carbon price. In the short term, these are likely to be steel, chemicals, fertilizers, and cement. The Parliament’s statement introduced another term to the glossary of climate policy: carbon leakage. “To raise global climate ambition and prevent ‘carbon leakage,’ the EU must place a carbon price on imports from less climate-ambitious countries.” It refers to the situation that may occur if businesses were to transfer production to other countries with laxer emission constraints to avoid costs related to climate policies. This could lead to an increase in total emissions in the higher-emitting countries. “The resolution underlines that the EU’s increased ambition on climate change must not lead to carbon leakage as global climate efforts will not benefit if EU production is just moved to non-EU countries that have less ambitious emissions rules,” the Parliament said. It also emphasized the tariff “must not be misused to further protectionism.” A member of the environment committee, Yannick Jadot, said, “It is a major political and democratic test for the EU, which must stop being naïve and impose the same carbon price on products, whether they are produced in or outside the EU, to ensure the most polluting sectors also take part in fighting climate change and innovate towards zero carbon. This will give us the best chance of remaining below the 1.5°C warming limit, whilst also pushing our trading partners to be equally ambitious in order to enter the EU market.” The Commission is expected to present a legislative proposal on a CBAM in the second quarter of 2021 as part of the European Green Deal.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document