Sequencing to ratchet up climate policy stringency

The Paris Agreement formulates the goal of GHG neutrality in the second half of this century. Given that Nationally Determined Contributions are as yet insufficient, the question is through which policies can this goal be realized? Identifying policy pathways to ratchet up stringency is instrumental, but little guidance is available. We propose a policy sequencing framework and substantiate it using the cases of Germany and California. Its core elements are policy options to overcome barriers to stringency over time. Such sequencing can advance policy design and hopefully reconcile the controversy between first-best and second-best approaches.Meeting the Paris Agreement climate goals requires increasingly ambitious climate policy. A framework for ratcheting up stringency through policy sequencing is proposed and illustrated using the cases of Germany and California, USA.

[1]  Benjamin J. Richardson.  Environment and Statecraft: The Strategy of Environmental Treaty-making, by S. Barrett , 2005 .

[2]  D. North.  Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance: Economic performance , 1990 .

[3]  Johannes Urpelainen.  A model of dynamic climate governance: dream big, win small , 2013, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics.

[4]  L. Goulder,et al.  Instrument Choice in Environmental Policy , 2008, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy.

[5]  Kelly Levin,et al.  Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change , 2012 .

[6]  R. Lipsey,et al.  The General Theory of Second Best , 1956 .

[7]  Michael Howlett,et al.  Conceptual and empirical advances in analysing policy mixes for energy transitions , 2017 .

[8]  T. Schmidt,et al.  Technology as a driver of climate and energy politics , 2017, Nature Energy.

[9]  A. Jordan,et al.  Designing policies that intentionally stick: policy feedback in a changing climate , 2014 .

[10]  B. Jones,et al.  Agendas and instability in American politics , 1993 .

[11]  J. Rayner,et al.  Understanding the historical turn in the policy sciences: A critique of stochastic, narrative, path dependency and process-sequencing models of policy-making over time , 2006 .

[12]  D. Burtraw.  Incremental Alignment of Cap-and-Trade Markets , 2013 .

[13]  William D. Nordhaus,et al.  Climate Clubs: Overcoming Free-riding in International Climate Policy † , 2015 .

[14]  Jesse D. Jenkins,et al.  Political economy constraints on carbon pricing policies: What are the implications for economic efficiency, environmental efficacy, and climate policy design? , 2014 .

[15]  T. Kehoe,et al.  The Interaction and Sequencing of Policy Reforms , 2016 .

[16]  Gernot Wagner,et al.  Policy sequencing toward decarbonization , 2017 .

[17]  Stefano Carattini,et al.  Overcoming public resistance to carbon taxes , 2018, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Climate change.

[18]  Eric Biber.  Cultivating a Green Political Landscape: Lessons for Climate Change Policy from the Defeat of California's Proposition 23 , 2012 .

[19]  David G. Victor,et al.  Global Warming Gridlock: Creating More Effective Strategies for Protecting the Planet , 2011 .

[20]  D. Vogel.  Trading Up: Consumer and Environmental Regulation in a Global Economy , 1997 .

[21]  Araz Taeihagh,et al.  Which Policy First? A Network-Centric Approach for the Analysis and Ranking of Policy Measures , 2013 .

[22]  K. Palmer,et al.  Linking by Degrees: Incremental Alignment of Cap-and-Trade Markets , 2013 .

[23]  Antje Strauss,et al.  Environment And Statecraft The Strategy Of Environmental Treaty Making , 2016 .

[24]  P. Pierson.  Not Just What, but When: Timing and Sequence in Political Processes , 2000, Studies in American Political Development.

[25]  Steffen Brunner,et al.  Credible commitment in carbon policy , 2012 .

[26]  T. Sterner,et al.  Policy Instruments for Environmental and Natural Resource Management , 2002 .

[27]  R. Kemp,et al.  Technology and Environmental Policy , 2013 .

[28]  Staffan Jacobsson,et al.  The politics and policy of energy system transformation—explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy technology , 2006 .

[29]  James K. Sebenius,et al.  Negotiation arithmetic: adding and subtracting issues and parties , 1983, International Organization.

[30]  Richard G. Newell,et al.  Environmental and Technology Policies for Climate Mitigation , 2008 .

[31]  K. Palmer,et al.  A Proximate Mirror: Greenhouse Gas Rules and Strategic Behavior Under the US Clean Air Act , 2015 .

[32]  N. Keohane,et al.  Toward a club of carbon markets , 2017, Climatic Change.

[33]  D. Weisbach,et al.  Linking Policies When Tastes Differ: Global Climate Policy in a Heterogeneous World , 2012, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy.

[34]  M. Pahle,et al.  Time for Tough Love: Towards Gradual Risk Transfer to Renewables in Germany , 2016 .

[35]  Charles R. Shipan,et al.  The mechanisms of policy diffusion , 2008 .

[36]  M. Pahle,et al.  Leadership and the Energiewende: German Leadership by Diffusion , 2016, Global Environmental Politics.

[37]  M. Hoffmann,et al.  The politics of decarbonization and the catalytic impact of subnational climate experiments , 2018, Policy Sciences.

[38]  D. North.  Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance: Economic performance , 1990 .

[39]  Sergio Rebelo,et al.  Research Agenda , 1983, Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE.

[40]  M. Hanemann.  California's New Greenhouse Gas Laws , 2008, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy.

[41]  Gregory C. Unruh.  Escaping carbon lock-in , 2002 .

[42]  Nina Kelsey,et al.  The Political Economy of Decarbonization: A Research Agenda , 2017 .

[43]  Richard N. Cooper,et al.  Trading up: Consumer and Environmental Regulation in a Global Economy , 1995 .

[44]  Miranda A. Schreurs,et al.  Multi-Level Reinforcement: Explaining European Union Leadership in Climate Change Mitigation , 2007, Global Environmental Politics.

[45]  Gregory C. Unruh.  Understanding carbon lock-in , 2000 .

[46]  James Maxwell,et al.  8. Self-Interest and Environmental Management , 1994 .

[47]  V. Lauber,et al.  Renewable Electricity Policy in Germany, 1974 to 2005 , 2006 .

[48]  Rolf Wüstenhagen,et al.  Solar feed-in tariffs in a post-grid parity world: The role of risk, investor diversity and business models , 2017 .

[49]  J. Mahoney.  Path dependence in historical sociology , 2000 .

[50]  Steven Bernstein,et al.  Complex global governance and domestic policies: four pathways of influence , 2012 .

[51]  Jeremy Morrow.  Can Green Sustain Growth? From the Religion to the Reality of Sustainable Prosperity , 2015 .

[52]  Jos Sijm.  The interaction between the EU emissions trading scheme and national energy policies , 2005 .

[53]  Hongtao Yi,et al.  Policy Tool Interactions and the Adoption of State Renewable Portfolio Standards , 2012 .

[54]  W. Arthur,et al.  Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy , 1996 .

[55]  M. Pahle,et al.  Can the Green Economy deliver it all? Experiences of renewable energy policies with socio-economic objectives , 2016 .

[56]  Ann E. Carlson.  Iterative Federalism and Climate Change , 2008 .

[57]  J. Zysman,et al.  Winning coalitions for climate policy , 2015, Science.

[58]  Instrument Choice in Environmental Policy , 2008, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy.

[59]  M. Howlett,et al.  Process Sequencing Policy Dynamics: Beyond Homeostasis and Path Dependency , 2009, Journal of Public Policy.

[60]  D. Burtraw,et al.  Two world views on carbon revenues , 2013, Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences.

[61]  P. David.  Clio and the Economics of QWERTY , 1985 .

[62]  The interaction between emissions trading and renewable electricity support schemes. An overview of the literature , 2007 .

[63]  O. Edenhofer,et al.  Learning or Lock-In: Optimal Technology Policies to Support Mitigation , 2011, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[64]  David G. Victor,et al.  Cooperation and discord in global climate policy , 2016 .

[65]  R. Rafaty,et al.  Perceptions of Corruption, Political Distrust, and the Weakening of Climate Policy , 2018, Global Environmental Politics.

[66]  P. Aghion,et al.  The Environment and Directed Technical Change , 2009, The American economic review.

[67]  Holger R. Maier,et al.  Scenario driven optimal sequencing under deep uncertainty , 2015, Environ. Model. Softw..

[68]  Rachel M. Krause,et al.  Applying Policy Termination Theory to the Abandonment of Climate Protection Initiatives by U.S. Local Governments , 2016 .

[69]  Till Stenzel,et al.  Regulating technological change—The strategic reactions of utility companies towards subsidy policies in the German, Spanish and UK electricity markets , 2008 .

[70]  Pablo del Río González,et al.  The interaction between emissions trading and renewable electricity support schemes. An overview of the literature , 2007 .

[71]  P. Pierson.  Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics , 2000, American Political Science Review.

[72]  M. Frondel.  Die Verteilung der Kosten des Ausbaus der Erneuerbaren , 2018 .

[73]  C. Carraro,et al.  Strategies for the international protection of the environment , 1993 .

[74]  Paul Pierson,et al.  When Effect Becomes Cause: Policy Feedback and Political Change , 1993, World Politics.

[75]  Mark R. Jacobsen,et al.  Vehicle Scrappage and Gasoline Policy , 2013 .

[76]  Manuel Frondel,et al.  The burden of Germany’s energy transition: An empirical analysis of distributional effects , 2015 .

[77]  A. Jaffe,et al.  A tale of two market failures: Technology and environmental policy , 2005 .

[78]  Marie Schmidt.  Policy Instruments For Environmental And Natural Resource Management , 2016 .

[79]  B. Flyvbjerg.  Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research , 2006, 1304.1186.

[80]  Danièle Revel,et al.  Climate Clubs: Overcoming Free-riding in International Climate Policy , 2015 .

[81]  L. Goulder,et al.  General Equilibrium Impacts of a Federal Clean Energy Standard , 2014 .