How to eat an elephant: a bottom-up approach to climate policy

A longstanding, alternative approach is offered to the existing UNFCCC international policy regime as a viable policy option. This ‘bottom-up’ approach has been neglected in policy discourse until now. The alternative approach is a ‘clumsy’ proposal, which emphasizes the ‘direction of travel’ over targets and timetables. It places an immediate emphasis on adaptation and the development of effective measures to minimize global warming through a diverse range of policy actions, originating from the ‘bottom up’ within nations, based on their own institutional, technological, economic and political capacities. Cumulatively, this would lead to a fundamental technological shift in global patterns of energy and land use. It would also encourage practical cooperation among the large emitters to control greenhouse gases and support the formation of regional collaborations on adaptation. Climate change is framed as a strategic challenge rather than an optimizing problem for analysts and policy-makers. Hence, policy is no longer obsessed with issues of leakage and concerns about free-riders, but greater explicit recognition is given to the fact that development is inevitably uneven and that different actors have very different motivations for action and capabilities to contribute to the climate change challenge.

[1]  Steve Rayner,et al.  Making Markets: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on Economic Exchange , 1992 .

[2]  Jan Corfee-Morlot,et al.  Cities, Climate Change and Multilevel Governance , 2009 .

[3]  Edward A. Parson,et al.  Protecting the Ozone Layer: Science and Strategy , 2003 .

[4]  Edward A. Parson,et al.  Protecting the Ozone Layer , 2003 .

[5]  David G. Victor,et al.  The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the Struggle to Slow Global Warming , 2001 .

[6]  I. Jones Geoengineering the climate , 2011 .

[7]  C. Green,et al.  An analysis of a technology-led climate policy as a response to climate change. , 2009 .

[8]  S. Rayner,et al.  The Hartwell Paper: a new direction for climate policy after the crash of 2009 , 2010 .

[9]  Atul K. Jain,et al.  Stability: Energy for a Greenhouse Planet Advanced Technology Paths to Global Climate , 2008 .

[10]  David W. Fahey,et al.  The importance of the Montreal Protocol in protecting climate , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[11]  N. Stern The Economics of Climate Change: Implications of Climate Change for Development , 2007 .

[12]  V. Ramanathan,et al.  Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon , 2008 .

[13]  J. Shepherd,et al.  Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty , 2009 .

[14]  Dallas Burtraw,et al.  The Paparazzi Take a Look at a Living Legend: The SO2 Cap-and-Trade Program for Power Plants in the United States , 2003 .

[15]  Atul K. Jain,et al.  Energy implications of future stabilization of atmospheric CO2 content , 1998, Nature.

[16]  M. Betsill,et al.  Rethinking Sustainable Cities: Multilevel Governance and the 'Urban' Politics of Climate Change , 2005 .

[17]  P Ekins,et al.  Human Choice and Climate Change, Volumes 1-4 - Rayner, S. & Malone, E. Eds., Battelle Press, Columbus, Ohio (Review) , 1999 .

[18]  S. Lohmann,et al.  Clumsy solutions for a complex world : the case of climate change , 2006 .

[19]  R. Seager,et al.  The Importance of the Montreal Protocol in Protecting Earth’s Hydroclimate , 2013 .

[20]  M. Betsill,et al.  Cities and climate change , 2002 .

[21]  M. Wara,et al.  Is the global carbon market working? , 2007, Nature.