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.

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.

Supplying protection: The United Nations and public support for humanitarian intervention

2017 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 248-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoffrey PR Wallace
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Institutions ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
Public Support ◽  
Burden Sharing ◽  
Humanitarian Interventions ◽  
Collective Action Problems ◽  
The Us ◽  
The United Nations

This paper examines the role of the constellation of interveners, along with the approval of international institutions like the United Nations, on public support for military interventions to protect civilians during war. Concerns over burden sharing and free riding have figured prominently in recent debates over the provision, or lack thereof, of humanitarian interventions. An experiment embedded in a survey of a representative sample of the US public shows that citizens are influenced less by the extent of material contributions from other countries than by whether the United Nations sanctions the mission. Further analysis indicates that the United Nations functions as a legitimating device that can help overcome collective action problems, rather than through alternative approaches emphasizing the signaling of information or ensuring greater military resources. The findings have implications for research on the role of international institutions and the domestic politics of support for the use of force.

Domestic Provision of Global Public Goods: How Other Countries’ Behavior Affects Public Support for Climate Policy

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Liam F. Beiser-McGrath ◽  
Thomas Bernauer
Keyword(s):  
Climate Policy ◽  
Climate Change Mitigation ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Public Support ◽  
The United States ◽  
Global Public Good ◽  
International Context ◽  
Past Behavior ◽  
Unilateral Action ◽  
Change Mitigation

Abstract When considering public support for domestic policies that contribute to a global public good, such as climate change mitigation, the behavior of other countries is commonly regarded as pivotal. Using survey experiments in China and the United States we find that other countries’ behavior matters for public opinion, but in a contingent manner. When citizens learn that other countries decrease their emissions, this leads to support for further domestic action. Yet, support for reciprocal behavior is not a necessary consequence of other countries increasing their emissions. Responding in-kind to emissions increases abroad depends upon the home country’s past behavior and who the other country is. Our results imply that the international context remains important, despite global climate policy now relying more on unilateral action and polycentric governance. They also show, however, that we need to pay greater attention to contingent effects of countries’ positive and negative behavior in this area.

scholarly journals Behavioural climate policy

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
SANDER VAN DER LINDEN ◽  
ADAM R. PEARSON ◽  
LEAF VAN BOVEN
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Climate Policy ◽  
Global Climate Change ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Rapid Development ◽  
Public Support ◽  
Sea Levels ◽  
The World ◽  
Mitigation Policies

Global climate change is the largest existential threat of our time. Glaciers are retreating, sea levels are rising, extreme weather is intensifying and the last four years have been the hottest on record (NASA, 2020; World Meteorological Organization, 2020). Although climate change is already significantly impacting natural and human systems around the world, mitigating further and potentially disastrous climate change will require large-scale individual and collective action, including public support for mitigation policies, as well as the more rapid development and implementation of adaptation plans (van der Linden et al., 2015; Pearson et al., 2016).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document