A Global Turn to Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading? Experiments, Actors, and Diffusion

Abstract

The policy instrument of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions trading has gained prominence since the early 2000s. At the end of 2016, twenty-one distinct GHG emissions trading systems (ETSs) covering thirty-five countries were operating worldwide (ICAP 2017). China has announced the launch of a national ETS for the second half of 2017, which is expected to become the world's largest carbon market. A number of other countries and subnational jurisdictions, including Thailand, Mexico, and Oregon, are considering the adoption of a GHG ETS. Hence, it is increasingly important to improve our knowledge about the forces that shape the initiation, design, and functioning of such systems, whether internal or external to the jurisdictions. This includes the interactions among individual systems and the precise ways in which ETS policy diffuses. With the increasing spread of GHG ETSs around the world over the past decade, sufficient empirical cases and variation are now available to provide a good knowledge base, and these warrant a thorough analysis.This special issue of Global Environmental Politics contributes to our knowledge and understanding of the expanding turn to GHG emissions trading. In particular, we aim to investigate the role and detailed unfolding of diffusion processes in the emergence of various GHG ETSs globally, with a particular focus on the interaction between external influences and domestic

Mapping and clustering the adoption of carbon pricing policies: what polities price carbon and why?

“…Studies of carbon pricing have historically focused on economic aspects, and in the cases in which they focus on the adoption of carbon pricing, mainly on single cases at the national, provincial or European Union level (Harrison, 2012;Heggelund, Stensdal, Duan, & Wettestad, 2019;Wettestad, 2014). Yet, a small but increasing number of publications study polities adopting emissions trading through comparative case studies (Houle, Lachapelle, & Purdon, 2015; the contributions to Biedenkopf, Müller, Slominski, & Wettestad, 2017;and Wettestad & Gulbrandsen, 2018) or large-N studies (Betsill & Hoffmann, 2011;Narassimhan, Gallagher, Koester, & Alejo, 2018). Several studies of emissions trading have adopted a critical perspective, emphasizing its neoliberal underpinnings (Lane & Newell, 2016; the contributions to Stephan & Paterson, 2012;Paterson, 2012).…”

“…Studies of carbon taxes, on the other hand, tend to focus more on why such taxes were adopted and their implications (Andersen & Ekins, 2009;Haites, 2018). While a small but growing body of literature addresses the diffusion of, respectively, emissions trading (see the contributions to Biedenkopf et al, 2017;Wettestad & Gulbrandsen, 2018) and carbon taxes (Andersen, 2019;Harrison, 2010), the global adoption of carbon pricing policies as an overarching policy instrument has not been studied. Studies covering both carbon taxes and emissions trading are rare, as are comparative studies of the adoption of carbon pricing (but see Carl & Fedor, 2016;Harrison, 2012;Rabe, 2018;Rabe & Borick, 2012).…”

Market responses to global governance: International climate cooperation and Europe's carbon trading

“…Evidently, the study is focused on Europe, but the findings should be of timely relevance for other countries where market-based carbon policies are gaining ground, such as Australia and California, or where organized private interests may have been more or less successful in lobbying beneficial policy terms, such as Canada. The study is also insightful to emerging economies that are piloting carbon trading systems, such as Mexico, South Africa and China (Biedenkopf et al, 2017).…”

Globalization and Biodiversity Conservation Problems: Polycentric REDD+ Solutions

“…Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation, Improved Forest Management and Afforestation, Reforestation and Revegetation (collectively referred to as REDD+), is a climate change mitigation scheme under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to help stem destruction of the world's tropical forests, by offering financial incentives to forest-right holders not to cut down trees [37]. It is a quintessential product of globalization, fully relying on actions at the global or regional levels, whether through carbon markets or other forms of global climate financing, to drive solutions at the global, national, and local levels [38]. Besides simply reducing CO 2 emissions, REDD+ also introduces an opportunity for climate financing to enhance biodiversity conservation, secure ecosystem services, and improve rural livelihoods [39].…”