Climate negotiators’ and scientists’ assessments of the climate negotiations

Dannenberg, Astrid; Zitzelsberger, Sonja; Tavoni, Alessandro

doi:10.1038/nclimate3288

Cited by 16 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The number of observations in the regression analyses is lower because some respondents did not answer all questions included as control variables and we left out all respondents who chose the "I don't know" option when assessing geoengineering. The response rate of 7% (6% UNFCCC and 24% IPCC) is not high but comparable to previous studies using similar samples [47][48][49][50][51][52] . It should also be noted that the response rate of 7% is a very conservative estimation as it refers to all emails that were sent out and did not immediately bounce back.…”

Section: Samplesupporting

confidence: 88%

Climate experts’ views on geoengineering depend on their beliefs about climate change impacts

Dannenberg

Zitzelsberger

2019

Nat. Clim. Chang.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change damages are expected to increase with global warming, which could be limited directly by solar geoengineering. Here we analyse the views of 723 negotiators and scientists involved in international climate policy who will have a significant influence on whether solar geoengineering will be deployed to counter climate change. We find that respondents who expect severe global climate change damages and who have little confidence in current mitigation efforts are more opposed to geoengineering than respondents who are less pessimistic about global damages and mitigation efforts. However, we also find that respondents are more supportive of geoengineering when they expect severe climate change damages in their home country than when they have more optimistic expectations for the home country. Thus, when respondents are more personally affected, their views are closer to what rational cost-benefit analyses predict. With international climate policy being unable so far to stop and reverse the trend of rising global greenhouse gas emissions 1 , solar geoengineering is increasingly gaining attention. It is in particular discussed as a way to bridge the time until clean technologies are developed and implemented and to respond in case of a climate emergency 2,3. Solar geoengineering, or solar radiation management, aims to cool the earth's surface temperature to counter climate change by partially deflecting the incoming sunlight. The most prominent proposal is to inject aerosol particles into the lower stratosphere to increase deflection of sunlight. Other ideas involve cloud brightening, the deployment of space mirrors, or whitening of rooftops. Solar radiation management could have a rapid effect on temperature and it would be relatively cheap 4-6. The main concern is about the risks and side effects, such as a chemical ozone loss at high latitudes 7,8 , changes in regional precipitation patterns 9 , or the Users may view, print, copy, and download text and data-mine the content in such documents, for the purposes of academic research, subject always to the full Conditions of use:

show abstract

Section: Samplesupporting

confidence: 88%

Climate experts’ views on geoengineering depend on their beliefs about climate change impacts

Dannenberg

Zitzelsberger

2019

Nat. Clim. Chang.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The COP21 redefined the framework for designing climate policies. The agreement has been analyzed thoroughly and the studies on the implications are numerous and diverse [24][25][26][27][28][29] . Some clear messages were given and climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well <2°C (ref.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a more effective climate policy on international trade

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the literature on the attribution of responsibilities for greenhouse gas emissions, two accounting methods have been widely discussed: production-based accounting (PBA) and consumption-based accounting (CBA). It has been argued that an accounting framework for attributing responsibilities should credit actions contributing to reduce global emissions and should penalize actions increasing them. Neither PBA nor CBA satisfy this principle. Adapting classical Ricardian trade theory, we consider ex post measurement and propose a scheme for assigning credits and penalties. Their size is determined by how much CO 2 emissions are saved globally due to trade. This leads to the emission responsibility allotment (ERA) for assigning responsibilities. We illustrate the differences between ERA and PBA and CBA by comparing their results for 41 countries and regions between 1995-2009. The Paris Agreement (COP21) proposed new market mechanisms; we argue that ERA is well suited to measure and evaluate their overall mitigation impact.

show abstract

“…Here we offer a novel way to address the question: ask highly seasoned climate policy experts who, as part of their professional lives, exercise judgements on such questions on a regular basis. Experts are a valuable source of information when variables of interest are di cult to observe and measure directly and require specialized domain knowledge and deep experience to evaluate (Dannenberg et al 2010(Dannenberg et al , 2017Morgan 2014;Dannenberg and Zitzelsberger 2019). When policy tradeoffs require assembling large amounts of information-guided by experience and intuition-pulsing the people who make those tradeoffs (and are "in the room" when those choices are debated and made) can be invaluable.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determining the willingness to link climate and trade policy

Lumkowsky

Carlton

Victor

et al. 2023

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Analysts have long advocated a linkage between international cooperation on climate change and trade measures, such as border tariffs. While the theoretical case for linkage has been clear, it has remained difficult to evaluate whether real world efforts to link these two domains will yield beneficial effects to international cooperation. Working with a large sample of climate experts, we elicited how the legitimacy and usefulness of linking trade and climate are assessed along with the risks that may arise. We find that experts from richer countries, especially Europe, are more likely to see linkage as legitimate and effective. A surprisingly robust finding is that experts who perceive their home country's emissions reduction pledge as ambitious are more likely to see risks from using trade measures. Experts seem to be increasingly aware of the dissonance between the voluntarism of the Paris Agreement and growing political pressures to apply trade measures.

show abstract

Climate negotiators’ and scientists’ assessments of the climate negotiations

Cited by 16 publications

References 44 publications

Climate experts’ views on geoengineering depend on their beliefs about climate change impacts

Climate experts’ views on geoengineering depend on their beliefs about climate change impacts

Towards a more effective climate policy on international trade

Determining the willingness to link climate and trade policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About