The return of carbon offsetting? The discursive legitimation of new market arrangements in the Paris climate regime

Blum, Mareike; Lövbrand, Eva

doi:10.1016/j.esg.2019.100028

Cited by 24 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The question is whether these guardrails can be constructed, as we move into a period of governance marked by the implementation of the Paris Agreement, spurred further by carbon neutrality platforms, the European Green Deal, and of late, the opportunities and constraints set in motion by plans to restart the global economy in the aftermath of Covid-19. Whether these sociotechnical strategies come to ‘repackage’ Copenhagen governmentalities in a laissez-faire mode of climate polycentrism ( Bernstein et al., 2010 ; Held and Roger, 2018 ; Ciplet and Roberts, 2017 ; Blum and Lövbrand, 2019 ) or offer opportunities for catalyzing a low-carbon transition, depends on our collective determination that the past assessed here need not be prologue.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…‘Ecological modernization’ might be ripe for a new mode that prioritizes low-carbon transitions. Yet, for many, the long-term trend is less optimistic: because the Paris Agreement institutionalizes the ‘voluntarism’ of Copenhagen, market mechanisms, reliance on private sector funding, innovation-facing rhetoric coupled with regulatory softening, and club-based decision-making can only intensify ( Bernstein et al., 2010 ; Krüger, 2017 ; Ciplet and Roberts, 2017 ; Blum and Lövbrand, 2019 ).…”

Section: Conceptual Framework: Sociotechnical Strategies Governmentamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Delaying decarbonization: Climate governmentalities and sociotechnical strategies from Copenhagen to Paris

Low

Boettcher

2020

Earth System Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An era (2005–2015) centered around the Copenhagen Accord saw the rise of several immature sociotechnical strategies currently at play: carbon capture and storage, REDD+, next-generation biofuels, shale gas, short-lived climate pollutants, carbon dioxide removal, and solar radiation management. Through a framework grounded in governmentality studies, we point out common trends in how this seemingly disparate range of strategies is emerging, evolving, and taking effect. We find that recent sociotechnical strategies reflect and reinforce governance rationalities emerging during the Copenhagen era: regime polycentrism, relative gains sought in negotiations, ‘co-benefits’ sought with other governance regimes, ‘time-buying’ or ‘bridging’ rationalities, and appeals to vulnerable demographics. However, these sociotechnical systems remain conditioned by the resilient market governmentality of the Kyoto Protocol era. Indeed, the carbon economy exercises a systemic structuring condition: While emerging climate strategies ostensibly present new tracks for signalling ambition and action, they functionally permit the delaying of comprehensive decarbonization.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Conceptual Framework: Sociotechnical Strategies Governmentamentioning

confidence: 99%

Delaying decarbonization: Climate governmentalities and sociotechnical strategies from Copenhagen to Paris

Low

Boettcher

2020

Earth System Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Equipped with some version of this analytical framework, researchers have explored a range of emerging TCG initiatives: transnational municipal climate networks like C40 Cities (Hakelburg 2014), voluntary standards and certification schemes like the Gold Standard for carbon offsets (Blum and Lovbrand 2019), and "Johannesburg partnerships" emerging from the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development and similar hybrid initiatives (Bäckstrand and Kylsater 2014). Such research rests on the widely accepted view that "examining the sources of diversity and types of transnational governance within the climate regime can … provide us with a rich basis for analysis of the broader landscape of transnational governance networks" (Andonova et al 2009, 58).…”

Section: The Tcg Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Steering and Influence in Transnational Climate Governance: Nonstate Engagement in Solar Geoengineering Research

Horton¹,

Koremenos²

2020

Global Environmental Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Theorists of transnational climate governance (TCG) seek to account for the increasing involvement of nonstate and substate actors in global climate policy. While transnational actors have been present in the emerging field of solar geoengineering—a novel technology intended to reflect a fraction of sunlight back to space to reduce climate impacts—many of their most significant activities, including knowledge dissemination, scientific capacity building, and conventional lobbying, are not captured by the TCG framework. Insofar as TCG is identified with transnational governance and transnational governance is important to reducing climate risks, an incomplete TCG framework is problematic for effective policy making. We attribute this shortcoming on the part of TCG to its exclusive focus on steering and corollary exclusion of influence as a critical component of governance. Exercising influence, for example, through inside and outside lobbying, is an important part of transnational governance—it complements direct governing with indirect efforts to inform, persuade, pressure, or otherwise influence both governor and governed. Based on an empirical analysis of solar geoengineering research governance and a theoretical consideration of alternative literatures, including research on interest groups and nonstate advocacy, we call for a broader theory of transnational governance that integrates steering and influence in a way that accounts for the full array of nonstate and substate engagements beyond the state.

show abstract

“…Hultman, Lou and Hutton ( 2019) point out that it may become important to encourage more purchasers to act on the premium market in the future. Blum and Lövbrand (2019) However, consistently thought out, the consideration of SDGs in the pricing of GHG emission reduction credits or certificates would have to be also applied in the context of the EU ETS, raising the transaction costs and reducing the attractiveness of the economic instrument of emission permit trading.…”

Section: Cooperative Approaches In Accordance With Article 6 Of the Paris Agreementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overstraining International Climate Finance: When Conflicts of Objectives Threaten Its Success

Buchholz

Rübbelke²

2020

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The return of carbon offsetting? The discursive legitimation of new market arrangements in the Paris climate regime

Cited by 24 publications

References 18 publications

Delaying decarbonization: Climate governmentalities and sociotechnical strategies from Copenhagen to Paris

Delaying decarbonization: Climate governmentalities and sociotechnical strategies from Copenhagen to Paris

Steering and Influence in Transnational Climate Governance: Nonstate Engagement in Solar Geoengineering Research

Overstraining International Climate Finance: When Conflicts of Objectives Threaten Its Success

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About