The global expansion of climate mitigation policy interventions, the Talanoa Dialogue and the role of behavioural insights

Abstract

Increasing attention is being paid to the Paris Climate Agreement and the impacts of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) intended to limit global warming to 1.5°C. However, the nature and evolution of existing policy mixes that underlie NDCs remain poorly understood. This critical issue has emerged from the outcomes of the Talanoa Dialogue for Climate Ambition, where little progress was made in building a comprehensive, evidence-based foundation for effective climate policy. To a large extent, this is due to the nature of the process, and a lack of data related to policy interventions in the pre-2020 period, notably their composition, coverage, and orientation. We seek to address these shortcomings by applying a directed content analysis to a dataset of national and citylevel policy interventions. The aim is to quantify the nature and evolution of policy efforts that promote the adoption of low-carbon energy technologies (LCETs) globally. Fifteen databases, containing more than 10,000 policies and measures were reviewed. Our findings highlight the rapid spread of policy portfolios and an international convergence towards economic incentives (notably subsidies). At the city level, technology and infrastructure policies dominate. However, it is unclear to what extent behavioural factors (i.e., cognitive, motivational and contextual aspects) that affect the choice and use of LCETs are taken into account in policy design. This is particularly important because studies that model the feasibility of the 1.5°C target reveal behavioural changes and the rapid adoption of low-carbon lifestyles as critical enabling factors. In response to the outcomes from the Talanoa Dialogue, we argue that policymakers need to go beyond stringent policy mixes and rapidly re-think their traditional economic-driven policymaking approach. Far more attention needs to be given to behavioural factors when designing, evaluating and implementing LCET policies.

A Research Agenda to Better Understand the Human Dimensions of Energy Transitions

“…Various studies have evaluated the effects of regulatory and non-regulatory interventions aimed at promoting sustainable energy behaviour. Most of these studies examined the effects of informational strategies and economic incentives on individual or household energy use behaviour (for reviews see Abrahamse et al, 2005;Dietz et al, 2009;Abrahamse and Steg, 2013;Bolderdijk and Steg, 2015;Maki et al, 2016;Mundaca et al, 2019). These studies provided important insights into the extent to which and when different interventions, alone or in combination, can be effective to promote sustainable energy behaviour.…”

“…Many states have set ambitious goals to decarbonise the energy system (Mundaca et al, 2019;Black et al, 2021). To achieve these goals, changes in technology and human behaviour are critical (IPCC, 2018;IEA, 2020IEA, , 2021.…”

Energy Efficiency: What Has Research Delivered in the Last 40 Years?

“…The literature on financial and economic mechanisms to encourage energy efficiency is vast and includes subsidies, loans, taxes, rebates, performance contracting, on-bill financing schemes, and tradable certificates. At the risk of oversimplification, studies show there is an abundance of economic incentives already implemented (e.g., subsidies) (72). The evidence is mixed and their (cost-)effectiveness varies and is subject to numerous conditions (e.g., energy pricing, targeted fuels, income, direct rebound effects, scale of market failures) (e.g., 24,54,61,[73][74][75].…”

The desirability of transitions in demand: Incorporating behavioural and societal transformations into energy modelling

“…There is no universal model of how integration should be developed because interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary projects vary in purpose, scale and scope, and because it depends on the problems and questions at hand, the mix of expertise, and the degree of coordination [182] . Through integration, the framework proposed in this study goes beyond the spatial disaggregation of where we are, where we want to go and how we get there [183] . It rather makes a case of reinstating science in society and legitimising different types of knowledge [180] towards exploring the broad spectrum of the potential for and impacts of behavioural changes, based on individual, community, national and global action for climate change.…”