A dual-track transition to global carbon pricing: nice idea, but doomed to fail

Haites, Erik

doi:10.1080/14693062.2020.1816888

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Grubb (2014) makes the theoretical case for a broad policy mix that allows rapid development and diffusion of mitigation technologies. The theoretical economists' view that a single international emissions trading scheme would be singularly effective and efficient is increasingly being questioned (Haites, 2020). CDR policies thus ought to be part of a policy ensemble mobilizing a nationally determined range of mitigation technologies, including by funding of research and development, providing incentives for roll-out of maturing technologies, and overcoming nonmonetary barriers.…”

Section: Potential Governance Principles On the National Appropriaten...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The ABC of Governance Principles for Carbon Dioxide Removal Policy

Honegger

Baatz²,

Eberenz³

et al. 2022

Front. Clim.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change mitigation actions, including those aimed at developing and scaling carbon dioxide removal (CDR) activities spanning the industrial, energy, and agroforestry sector, emerge in a context of internationally shared norms that include governance objectives, legal provisions and informal expectations, and societal expectations. Established governance principles provide normative orientation for policy including when targeting the development and scaling of CDR. Knowledge of these principles can guide effective discussion and evaluation of policy options. To facilitate discussion of mitigation options among experts and CDR practitioners, this study excerpts governance principles from legislative texts, the climate governance literature, and the CDR literature with relevance to CDR policy considerations. To illustrate the relevance of the governance principles found for evaluating policy options, we apply them to three technology groups of CDR: Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS), and forestry. This exercise indicates the importance of more intensive attention to the normative dimension of mitigation policies in ongoing deliberative and planning processes. Such efforts can help disentangle normative and factual dimensions and sources of (dis)agreement on the role of CDR in specific climate policy contexts.

show abstract

Section: Potential Governance Principles On the National Appropriaten...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The ABC of Governance Principles for Carbon Dioxide Removal Policy

Honegger

Baatz²,

Eberenz³

et al. 2022

Front. Clim.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yet, what are the options should all the main approaches summarized in Section 4 still prove impossible to implement unilaterally, due to the combination of internal resistance and international reactions that overwhelm the initiatives of any single jurisdiction? A global agreement on common carbon pricing is evidently impossible, and even "dual track" approaches proposed for carbon pricing and convergence (173) seem "doomed to fail" (174). Amplified by enduring geopolitical realities (see, e.g., 175), even global regulatory standards for embodied carbon face huge obstacles, leading researchers to turn increasingly to ideas of smaller groups of countries collaborating to drive policy forward.…”

Section: On Clubs and Multijurisdictional Cooperationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Carbon Leakage, Consumption, and Trade

Grubb

Jordan

Hertwich

et al. 2022

Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We review the state of knowledge concerning international CO2 emission transfers associated particularly with trade in energy-intensive goods and concerns about carbon leakage arising from climate policies. The historical increase in aggregate emission transfers from developing to developed countries peaked around 2006 and declined since. Studies find no evidence that climate policies lead to carbon leakage, but this is partly due to shielding of key industrial sectors, which is incompatible with deep decarbonization. Alternative or complementary consumption-based approaches are needed. Private sector initiatives to trace and address carbon emissions throughout supply chains have grown substantially but cannot compensate for inadequate policy. Three main price-based approaches to tackling carbon leakage are potentially compatible with international trade rules: border adjustments on imports, carbon consumption charges, and climate excise contributions combined with emissions trading. We also consider standards and public procurement options to tackle embodied emissions. Finally, we discuss proposals for carbon clubs involving cooperation among a limited set of countries. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Volume 47 is October 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

show abstract

“…It is not for lack of imagining a strong sanctions regime but the inability to overcome the distributional conflicts inherent in collective mitigation action that the Kyoto-style approach has fallen out of favour (Falkner, 2016b). Nordhaus' club model offers a cogent explanation of how it would work once in place, but cannot explain how to achieve enforceable climate agreements (see also Haites, 2020).…”

Section: Politically Feasible and Useful?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate clubs: politically feasible and desirable?

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The idea of a stringent climate club, once the reserve of academic debates, is quickly gaining ground in international policy circles. This reflects dissatisfaction with the multilateral UNFCCC process, but also hope that a minilateral club could increase climate policy ambition, reinvigorate the Paris Agreement process, and make future emissions pledges stick. With the Biden Presidency renewing the US commitment toward climate action and the European Green Deal proposal for carbon border tariffs, some are advocating the creation of a transatlantic climate club. What could a club approach hope to achieve, and what do we know about its political feasibility and desirability? In this article, we seek conceptual clarification by establishing a typology of different club models; we inject a greater sense of political realism into current debates on the feasibility of these models; and we consider their legitimacy in the context of international climate cooperation. Key policy insights. Knowledge gaps and confusion regarding the nature of climate clubs hold back debates about what intergovernmental clubs can contribute to international climate policy. . Club design matters: existing club models vary in terms of the proposed size, purpose, operational principles, legal strength, and relationship to the UNFCCC. . Clubs focused on normative commitments face low barriers to establishment.They lack legal strength but can help raise policy ambition. . Clubs aimed at negotiating targets and measures can increase bargaining efficiency, but struggle to deal with equity and distributional conflicts. . Clubs seeking to change incentives via club benefits and sanctions face the highest hurdles to implementation. Their promise to tackle free-riding remains untested and difficult to achieve. . Climate clubs face an international legitimacy deficit. Any club proposal needs to consider how to add to, and not distract from, the multilateral climate regime.

show abstract

A dual-track transition to global carbon pricing: nice idea, but doomed to fail

Cited by 7 publications

References 17 publications

The ABC of Governance Principles for Carbon Dioxide Removal Policy

The ABC of Governance Principles for Carbon Dioxide Removal Policy

Carbon Leakage, Consumption, and Trade

Climate clubs: politically feasible and desirable?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About