@article{LeipprandFlachslandPahle, author = {Leipprand, Anna and Flachsland, Christian and Pahle, Michael}, title = {Starting low, reaching high? Sequencing in EU climate and energy policies}, series = {Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions}, volume = {37}, journal = {Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions}, doi = {10.1016/j.eist.2020.08.006}, pages = {140 -- 155}, abstract = {In order to achieve the UNFCCC Paris Agreement goals, climate policies worldwide require considerable ratcheting-up. Policy sequencing provides a framework for analysing policy process dynamics that facilitate ratcheting-up. We apply a sequencing perspective to two key EU climate and energy policies, the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and the Renewable Energy Directive (RED), to comparatively test the empirical relevance of sequencing for single policies - in addition to sequencing across policies, which has been the focus of sequencing theory so far - and to uncover specific mechanisms. Our results confirm that sequencing, based on triggering positive and controlling negative feedback, is relevant both within and across policies. Policy choices that may facilitate ratcheting-up include tools to control costs, the possibility to centralise and harmonise in a multi-level governance context, options for compensation of reluctant actors, and the encouragement of learning processes.}, language = {en} } @article{JakobFlachslandSteckeletal., author = {Jakob, Michael and Flachsland, Christian and Steckel, Jan Christoph and Urpelainen, Johannes}, title = {Actors, objectives, context: A framework of the political economy of energy and climate policy applied to India, Indonesia, and Vietnam}, series = {Energy Research \& Social Science}, volume = {70}, journal = {Energy Research \& Social Science}, doi = {10.1016/j.erss.2020.101775}, pages = {1 -- 12}, abstract = {Devising policies that facilitate a transition to low-carbon energy systems requires a close understanding of the country-specific political economy of energy and climate policy. We develop a generalized AOC ('Actors, Objectives, Context') political economy framework to inform and enable comparison of country-specific case studies of how economic structure, political institutions, and the political environment shape policy outcomes. Our actor-centered perspective is built on the assumption that those policies are implemented that best meet the objectives of actors with the greatest influence on policy decisions. Applying the framework in practice includes four basic steps: i) identifying the societal and political actors most relevant for the formulation, implementation and enforcement of energy and climate policies; ii) spelling out these actors' underlying objectives; iii) assessing the economic, institutional, discursive and environmental context which determines how certain objectives matter for certain societal actors; and iv) analyzing the dynamic interactions among these factors leading to aggregate policy outcomes. Context factors determine how societal actors influence political actors engaged in formal public policy formulation, implementation and enforcement, and how the dynamic interplay of different political actors' interests results in energy and climate policy outcomes. The framework can accommodate a wide range of theoretical perspectives. We illustrate how the framework enables conducting comparable energy and climate policy country case studies, using the example of coal use in India, Indonesia and Vietnam. Finally, we discuss how the framework can contribute to the identification of entry points that could bring about policy change.}, language = {en} } @article{MuellerHansenCallaghanLeeetal., author = {M{\"u}ller-Hansen, Finn and Callaghan, Max W. and Lee, Yuan Ting and Leipprand, Anna and Flachsland, Christian and Minx, Jan C.}, title = {Who cares about coal? Analyzing 70 years of German parliamentary debates on coal with dynamic topic modeling}, series = {Energy Research \& Social Science}, volume = {72}, journal = {Energy Research \& Social Science}, doi = {10.1016/j.erss.2020.101869}, abstract = {Despite Germany's Paris Agreement pledge and coal exit legislation, the political debate around carbon-intensive coal remains heated. Coal power and mining have played an important, yet changing role in the history of German politics. In this paper, we analyze the entire parliamentary debate on coal in the German parliament (Bundestag) from its inception in 1949 to 2019. For this purpose we extract the more than 870,000 parliamentary speeches from all protocols in the history of the Bundestag. We identify the 9167 speeches mentioning coal and apply dynamic topic modeling - an unsupervised machine learning technique that reveals the changing thematic structure of large document collections over time - to analyze changes in parliamentary debates on coal over the past 70 years. The trends in topics and their varying internal structure reflect how energy policy was discussed and legitimized over time: Initially, coal was framed as a driver of economic prosperity and guarantee of energy security. In recent years, the debate evolved towards energy transition, coal phase-out and renewable energy expansion. Germany's smaller and younger parties, the Greens and the Left Party, debate coal more often in the context of the energy transition and climate protection than other parties. Our results reflect trends in other countries and other fields of energy policy. Methodologically, our study illustrates the potential of and need for computational methods to analyze vast corpora of text and to complement traditional social science methods.}, language = {en} } @incollection{EdenhoferFlachsland, author = {Edenhofer, Ottmar and Flachsland, Christian}, title = {Laudato si'. Die Sorge um die globalen Gemeinschaftsg{\"u}ter}, series = {Christlicher Sch{\"o}pfungsglaube heute. Spirituelle Oase oder vergessene Verantwortung?}, booktitle = {Christlicher Sch{\"o}pfungsglaube heute. Spirituelle Oase oder vergessene Verantwortung?}, editor = {Voges, Sefan}, publisher = {Matthias Gr{\"u}newald Verlag}, address = {Mainz}, isbn = {9783786732266}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {35 -- 49}, language = {de} } @techreport{PahleKoschKnopfetal., type = {Working Paper}, author = {Pahle, Michael and Kosch, Mirjam and Knopf, Brigitte and Flachsland, Christian and Edenhofer, Ottmar}, title = {Eckpunkte und no-regret Maßnahmen f{\"u}r die Weiterentwicklung der CO2-Bepreisung auf deutscher und europ{\"a}ischer Ebene. Ariadne-Hintergrund.}, pages = {1-10}, abstract = {Dieses Papier beschreibt Empfehlungen zur Weiterentwicklung des nationalen Brennstoff-Emissionshandelsgesetzes (BEHG) - und wie ein reibungsfreier {\"U}bergang zur europ{\"a}ischen Ebene gestaltet werden kann. Bei der Einf{\"u}hrung und Ausgestaltung eines EU-Emissionshandelssystem f{\"u}r Geb{\"a}ude und Straßenverkehr (EU ETS-II) bestehen derzeit noch diverse Unsicherheiten. Unabh{\"a}ngig von den Entscheidungen auf europ{\"a}ischer Ebene identifizieren wir jedoch vier No-Regret Maßnahmen zur Weiterentwicklung des BEHG, die in allen F{\"a}llen f{\"o}rderlich sind: 1. Zeitliches Vorziehen und Anhebung des Preiskorridors plus Versteigerung: Die Einf{\"u}hrung eines Preiskorridors und die Versteigerung von Zertifikaten sollte auf das Jahr 2023 vorgezogen werden. Zudem sollte der Preiskorridor angehoben und verbreitert werden, um den neuen nationalen Klimazielen Rechnung zu tragen. 2. BEHG Emissionsmengen analog zu Sektorzielen: Die EU-Kommission hat im Fit-for-55 Paket eine Erh{\"o}hung des deutschen ESR-Ziels auf 50\% vorgeschlagen, was auch ungef{\"a}hr den nationalen Zielen im Rahmen des Klimaschutzgesetzes (KSG) von 2021 entspricht. Um zu einem fr{\"u}heren Zeitpunkt Verbindlichkeit zu schaffen, sollten daher die BEHG-Emissionsmengen aus den KSG Sektorzielen abgeleitet werden. 3. Direkte Pro-Kopf-R{\"u}ckerstattung: F{\"u}r den zu erwartenden Fall deutlich steigender CO2-Preise sollte die Bundesregierung schon vor 2023 die institutionellen Voraussetzungen f{\"u}r die Umsetzung des Klimagelds wie im Koalitionsvertrag beschrieben schaffen. 4. Nationaler CO2-Mindestpreis: Bis sp{\"a}testens 2025 sollte ein Mindestpreis zur eventuellen Erg{\"a}nzung eines EU ETS-II vorbereitet und ggf. implementiert werden. Dadurch kann im Fall anf{\"a}nglich niedriger Preise im EU ETS-II garantiert werden, dass der CO2-Preis in Deutschland weiterhin kontinuierlich ansteigt. Neben diesen Maßnahmen auf nationaler Ebene, sollte sich die Bundesregierung in den Fit-for-55 Verhandlungen einsetzen (1) f{\"u}r die Flexibilit{\"a}t zwischen EU ETS und ESR sowie (2) f{\"u}r ein graduelles Linking zwischen ETS-I und ETS-II. Mit beiden Maßnahmen k{\"o}nnen die sehr hohen Preisunterscheide reduziert und die Effizienz der Klimapolitik erh{\"o}ht werden.}, language = {de} } @techreport{KuehnerJakobFlachsland, type = {Working Paper}, author = {K{\"u}hner, Ann-Kathrin and Jakob, Michael and Flachsland, Christian}, title = {Positionen deutscher Stakeholder zu einem europ{\"a}ischen CO2-Grenzausgleich. Ariadne-Hintergrund.}, pages = {1-39}, abstract = {Die Sorge um „Carbon Leakage" ist ein zentrales Hindernis f{\"u}r eine ambitionierte deutsche und Europ{\"a}ische Klimapolitik und hat in der Vergangenheit zu intensiven politischen Konflikten gef{\"u}hrt. Um angesichts der ambitionierten Klimaziele des Green Deal Carbon Leakage in Zukunft zu verhindern, hat die Europ{\"a}ische Union in ihrem „Fit f{\"u}r 55"-Paket ein CO2-Grenzausgleichssystem (Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, CBAM) vorgeschlagen. {\"U}ber den Gesetzesvorschlag der Kommission wird momentan im zust{\"a}ndigen Umweltausschuss des EU-Parlaments beraten. Die Entscheidung des EU-Parlaments wird dann an den Rat der Europ{\"a}ischen Union, nun unter dem Vorsitz Frankreichs, {\"u}bermittelt und dort weiter diskutiert. Die Verordnung soll im Januar 2023 in Kraft treten. Angesichts der Sorgen und politischen Konflikte um m{\"o}gliches Carbon Leakage hat die Frage der Unterst{\"u}tzung und Ablehnung der verschiedenen spezifischen Designelemente eines EU CBAM durch verschiedene Stakeholdergruppen eine hohe politische Relevanz. Vor diesem Hintergrund haben wir mehr als 80 der zentralen Vertreterinnen und Vertreter der deutschen Fachdebatte aus Wirtschaft, Zivilgesellschaft und Wissenschaft sowohl nach ihren grundlegenden Einstellungen als auch zu spezifischen Details der Ausgestaltung eines CBAM befragt. Dabei zeigt sich, dass in Deutschland ein CBAM unter den wichtigsten Stakeholdergruppen durchschnittlich bef{\"u}rwortet wird. Als Hauptdiskussionspunkte identifiziert wurden(1) das Auslaufen der kostenlosen Zuteilung von Emissionsrechten bei Einf{\"u}hrung eines CBAM, (2) die Anwendung eines CBAM nur auf Importe (und nicht auch auf Exporte), (3) die Frage ob und f{\"u}r welche L{\"a}nder Ausnahmen gelten sollten und (4) die Verwendung der CBAM-Einnahmen.}, language = {de} } @techreport{KnodtRodiFlathetal., type = {Working Paper}, author = {Knodt, Mich{\`e}le and Rodi, Michael and Flath, Lucas and Kalis, Michael and Kemmerzell, J{\"o}rg and Leukhardt, Falko and Flachsland, Christian}, title = {Mehr Kooperation wagen. Wasserstoffgovernance im deutschen F{\"o}deralismus. Interterritoriale Koordination, Planung und Regulierung.}, pages = {1-36}, abstract = {Die Notwendigkeit einer st{\"a}rkeren Kooperation zwischen Bund und L{\"a}ndern in der Energiewende wird im Koalitionsvertrag der neuen Bundesregierung explizit hervorgehoben. Im Bereich des Wasserstoffes buchstabiert der Koalitionsvertrag hier jedoch keine konkreten Schritte aus, obwohl dem Energietr{\"a}ger mit der im Juni 2020 verabschiedeten Nationalen Wasserstoffstrategie eine zentrale energiepolitische Bedeutung zugewiesen wurde. Die rechtlichen und politischen Rahmenbedingungen f{\"u}r die Koordination wasserstoffpolitischer Maßnahmen und die Umsetzung der Nationalen Wasserstoffstrategie im deutschen F{\"o}deralismus wurden dabei bis dato noch wenig beachtet. Die vorliegende Ariadne-Analyse diskutiert die M{\"o}glichkeiten der vertikalen Koordination von Bund und L{\"a}ndern sowie der horizontalen Koordination zwischen den Bundesl{\"a}ndern. Die Analyse zeigt: Bestehende Modi der Koordination reichen entweder nicht aus oder werden durch divergierende Ziele nicht genutzt. F{\"u}r eine effektive Umsetzung der Nationalen Wasserstoffstrategie und der Wasserstoffstrategien einzelner L{\"a}nder bedarf es neuer Formen der Bund-L{\"a}nder-Koordination. Wir skizzieren deshalb drei komplement{\"a}re Optionen zur Steigerung der vertikalen und horizontalen Koordinationskapazit{\"a}ten: erstens die Festlegung grundlegender Standards der Herstellung und Nutzung von Wasserstoff, zweitens eine st{\"a}rkere Koordination der Bedarfsplanung und drittens die Institutionalisierung der Kooperation von Bund und L{\"a}ndern.}, language = {de} } @article{RaiserFlachslandCalı, author = {Raiser, Kilian and Flachsland, Christian and {\c{C}}al{\i}, Ba{\c{s}}ak}, title = {Understanding pledge and review: learning from analogies to the Paris Agreement review mechanisms}, series = {Climate Policy}, journal = {Climate Policy}, doi = {10.1080/14693062.2022.2059436}, pages = {1 -- 25}, abstract = {This article draws lessons for the effectiveness of the Paris Agreement's pledge and review mechanisms from the performance of comparable review mechanisms established under other international treaties. The article employs systematic evidence synthesis methods to review the existing literature on international review mechanisms in the human rights, trade, labour, and monetary policy fields and identifies six common factors influencing their performance. Applying these findings to the Paris Agreement, the analysis finds that its review mechanisms incorporate many of these factors. In particular, they combine both expert and peer review, allow for repeated interaction and capacity building, and facilitate the regular and transparent provision of information. The comparative analysis also highlights two major deficiencies of the Paris Agreement: the absence of procedures to assess the adequacy of national pledges and actions taken to implement them, and resource constraints in carrying out a complex and arduous review process. Active engagement of non-state actors with review mechanisms is identified as a potential remedy to these shortcomings. However, the overall experience of other regimes suggests that, on their own, review mechanisms provide few incentives for states to undertake significant policy changes. Rather, the political context of each regime conditions the performance of review mechanisms. We therefore conclude that the Paris Agreement's review mechanisms alone are unlikely to bring about the necessary ratcheting up of climate policy ambitions.}, language = {en} } @techreport{EdmondsonFlachslandausdemMooreetal., type = {Working Paper}, author = {Edmondson, Duncan and Flachsland, Christian and aus dem Moore, Nils and Koch, Nicolas and Koller, Florian and Gruhl, Henri and Brehm, Johannes and Levi, Sebastian}, title = {Assessing Climate Policy Instrument Pathways: An Application to the German Light Duty Vehicle Sector}, publisher = {Kopernikus-Projekt Ariadne}, address = {Potsdam}, doi = {10.48462/opus4-4713}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-47130}, pages = {138}, language = {en} } @techreport{ZwarEdenhoferFlachsland, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Zwar, Claudia and Edenhofer, Jacob and Flachsland, Christian}, title = {Introducing and applying the Climate Institutions Analysis Framework (CIAF): A comparative analysis of climate institutions in Germany, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Australia using the CIAF}, publisher = {SocArXiv}, doi = {10.31235/osf.io/jf8ah_v1}, pages = {39, 88}, abstract = {Climate institutions - including framework legislation and advisory bodies - have proliferated globally as part of countries' responses to climate change. They have received growing attention amid a broader 'institutional turn' in the study of climate politics. We lack conceptual tools, however, to analyse these meso-level institutions and disentangle the mechanisms driving their effects on climate policymaking. To fill this gap, we develop the Climate Institutions Analysis Framework (CIAF) and use it to qualitatively analyse climate institutions in Germany, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Australia. We demonstrate how cross-country variation in effects stems from interactions between institutions and 'intervening variables' specific to countries' contexts. Across our sample, most institutions address agenda-setting and knowledge-related strategic challenges; few deliver ex-ante accountability and none compensation. Our framework is relevant for comparative political economy analyses of meso-level political institutions, and, alongside our results, offers lessons for policymakers seeking to create or improve climate institutions.}, language = {en} } @techreport{AdolphsenFeistFlachslandetal., type = {Working Paper}, author = {Adolphsen, Ole and Feist, Marian and Flachsland, Christian and Geden, Oliver and G{\"o}rlach, Benjamin and Jakob, Michael}, title = {Deutschlands Klimaaußenpolitik: Kontext - R{\"u}ckschau - Weiterentwicklung}, publisher = {Kopernikus-Projekt Ariadne}, address = {Potsdam}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.48485/pik.2024.017}, pages = {61}, language = {de} } @techreport{EdenhoferFlachsland, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Edenhofer, Jacob and Flachsland, Christian}, title = {Introducing the Climate Politics Framework (CPF): An application to German climate policy}, publisher = {Center for Open Science}, doi = {10.31235/osf.io/qkbj3_v1}, pages = {74, 1}, abstract = {This paper introduces the Climate Politics Framework (CPF), a novel and comprehensive approach to analyzing climate policymaking. The CPF sets out four fundamental problems—pervasive collective action challenges, distributional dynamics, long-term policy, and deep uncertainty—that shape both elite and mass-level climate politics. These, in turn, influence the stringency and design of climate policy platforms, which consist of institutions, policy instruments as well as framing and rhetoric. These platforms can both cause emissions reductions—the main dependent variable of interest—and address strategic challenges in the climate policy process (e.g. agenda-setting, coordination, compensation, and commitment), thereby altering political dynamics over time. Applying the CPF to Germany, based on elite interviews and a literature review, we analyze key episodes and structural features of German climate policy over the past four decades. The CPF offers both an academic contribution—by synthesizing disparate strands of the climate politics literature—and, with a view to future applications, a practical tool for policymakers and stakeholders to diagnose political barriers and identify pathways for effective climate policymaking.}, language = {en} } @techreport{FeistKuehnerFlachsland, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Feist, Marian and K{\"u}hner, Ann-Kathrin and Flachsland, Christian}, title = {Selling CBAM: Diplomacy for the European Union's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism}, publisher = {Kopernikus-Projekt Ariadne}, address = {Potsdam}, doi = {10.48485/pik.2024.010}, pages = {27}, language = {en} } @article{KuehnerJakobFlachsland, author = {K{\"u}hner, Ann-Kathrin and Jakob, Michael and Flachsland, Christian}, title = {German stakeholder perceptions of an EU carbon border adjustment mechanism}, volume = {17}, publisher = {Environmental Research Letters}, doi = {10.1088/1748-9326/ac9f23}, abstract = {The European Commission has proposed a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) that would apply the carbon price prevailing in the EU emissions trading system to import-related emissions. We conducted a survey to study perceptions of an EU CBAM among German key stakeholders from industry, civil society, and research in July 2021. We find that substantial support for CBAM exists as well as the expectation that the mechanism will eventually be introduced. We identified divergent views on key design options among stakeholder groups. Stakeholders from industry generally favour the continuation of free allocation of emissions allowances, rebates for exporters from the EU, coverage of only scope 1 emissions, and use of revenues for domestic spending. Stakeholders from civil society prefer phasing out free allocation, coverage only of imports, an emissions scope including all indirect emissions, exempting low-income countries and countries that do implement non-price-based climate policies, and the use of revenues to finance green transformation in low-income countries. Respondents from research would generally rather see free allocation being phased out, emissions coverage of scope 1 and 2, exemptions for low-income countries and countries that do implement non-price-based policies with comparable effects in relevant sectors and a transfer of revenues to support clean technologies in low-income countries and green technologies in the EU. Our survey design allows us to identify three cross-stakeholder group clusters, one containing stakeholders who are comparably more hesitant towards CBAM, a second one with respondents most in favour of introducing CBAM, as well as a 'middle ground' cluster which contains views that are often in between the other two. We also compare the survey responses to the design of the Commission's CBAM proposal to identify the most likely points of political disagreement.}, language = {en} } @article{OhlendorfFlachslandNemetetal., author = {Ohlendorf, Nils and Flachsland, Christian and Nemet, Gregory F. and Steckel, Jan Christoph}, title = {Carbon price floors and low-carbon investment: A survey of German firms}, series = {Energy Policy}, volume = {169}, journal = {Energy Policy}, number = {113187}, issn = {0301-4215}, doi = {10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113187}, abstract = {Introducing a price floor in emissions trading schemes (ETS) theoretically stabilizes expectations on future carbon prices and thus fosters low-carbon investment. Yet, ex post evidence on high carbon prices is scant and the relevance of carbon pricing for investment decisions is frequently contested. We provide empirical ex ante evidence on how a price floor in the EU ETS would impact the size and portfolio of energy firms' investments. Analyzing survey responses of high-level managers in 113 German energy and industry companies, we find that the level of the price floor is crucial. A low price floor trajectory only provides insurance against downward price fluctuations and would leave investments largely unchanged except for industries receiving electricity price compensation, which reduce their investments. A high floor, significantly increasing the price level beyond current expectations, leads to higher investment by the majority of firms, especially by green firms, while investment in fossil energy would partially be abolished. Our studies implies that price floors can be important design components of ETS. However, policymakers need to ensure that they are at sufficiently high levels to affect investment decisions in a meaningful way.}, language = {en} } @article{KornekFlachslandKardishetal., author = {Kornek, Ulrike and Flachsland, Christian and Kardish, Chris and Levi, Sebastian and Edenhofer, Ottmar}, title = {What is important for achieving 2 °C? UNFCCC and IPCC expert perceptions on obstacles and response options for climate change mitigation}, series = {Environmental Research Letters}, volume = {15}, journal = {Environmental Research Letters}, doi = {10.1088/1748-9326/ab6394}, pages = {1 -- 10}, abstract = {Global mitigation efforts remain insufficient to limit the global temperature increase to well below 2 °C. While a growing academic literature analyzes this problem, perceptions of which obstacles inhibit goal attainment and which responses might be most effective seem to differ widely. This makes prioritization and agreement on the way forward difficult. To inform prioritization in global climate policy and research agendas, we present quantitative data on how 917 experts from the IPCC and the UNFCCC perceive the importance of different obstacles and response options for achieving 2 °C. On average, respondents consider opposition from special interest groups the most important obstacle and technological R\&D the most important response. Our survey also finds that the majority of experts perceives a wide range of issues as important, supporting an agenda that is inclusive in terms of coverage. Average importance ratings differ between experts from the Global North and South, suggesting that balanced representation in global fora and regionally differentiated agendas are important. In particular, opposition from special interest groups is a top priority among experts from North America, Europe and Oceania. Investigating the drivers of individual importance ratings, we find little difference between experts from the IPCC and the UNFCCC, while expert's perceptions correlate with their academic training and their national scientific, regulatory, and financial contexts.}, language = {en} } @article{DubashPillaiFlachslandetal., author = {Dubash, Navroz K. and Pillai, Aditya Valiathan and Flachsland, Christian and Harrison, Kathyrn and Hochstetler, Kathryn and Lockwood, Matthew and MacNeil, Robert and Mildenberger, Matto and Paterson, Matthew and Teng, Fei and Tyler, Emily}, title = {National climate institutions complement targets and policies}, series = {Science}, volume = {374}, journal = {Science}, number = {6568}, doi = {10.1126/science.abm1157}, pages = {690 -- 693}, abstract = {Discussions about climate mitigation tend to focus on the ambition of emission reduction targets or the prevalence, design, and stringency of climate policies. However, targets are more likely to translate to near-term action when backed by institutional machinery that guides policy development and implementation. Institutions also mediate the political interests that are often barriers to implementing targets and policies. Yet the study of domestic climate institutions is in its infancy, compared with the study of targets and policies. Existing governance literatures document the spread of climate laws (1, 2) and how climate policy-making depends on domestic political institutions (3-5). Yet these literatures shed less light on how states organize themselves internally to address climate change. To address this question, drawing on empirical case material summarized in table S1, we propose a systematic framework for the study of climate institutions. We lay out definitional categories for climate institutions, analyze how states address three core climate governance challenges—coordination, building consensus, and strategy development—and draw attention to how institutions and national political contexts influence and shape each other. Acontextual "best practice" notions of climate institutions are less useful than an understanding of how institutions evolve over time through interaction with national politics.}, language = {en} } @techreport{LeviWolfFlachslandetal., type = {Working Paper}, author = {Levi, Sebastian and Wolf, Ingo and Flachsland, Christian and Koch, Nicolas and Koller, Florian and Edmondson, Duncan}, title = {Klimaschutz und Verkehr: Zielerreichung nur mit unbequemen Maßnahmen m{\"o}glich. Ariadne-Analyse}, pages = {1-42}, abstract = {Die Klimaschutzziele f{\"u}r das Jahr 2030 sind im Verkehrssektor nur mit starken zus{\"a}tzlichen Treibhausgasreduktionen erreichbar. Die beschlossenen Maßnahmen k{\"o}nnen laut gegenw{\"a}rtigen Projektionen nur einen Bruchteil jener Emissionen reduzieren, welche f{\"u}r die Erreichung der Klimaschutzziele im Verkehrssektor notwendig w{\"a}ren. Um die politische Umsetzbarkeit zus{\"a}tzlicher Klimaschutzmaßnahmen zu er{\"o}rtern, analysieren wir die Emissionsminderungswirkung und die Bev{\"o}lkerungsakzeptanz von 14 m{\"o}glichen Maßnahmen, basierend auf Drittstudien und eigenen Erhebungen. Wir zeigen, dass die wirkungsst{\"a}rksten Maßnahmen tendenziell eine geringe Zustimmung in der Bev{\"o}lkerung erfahren, wobei die Lastenverteilung keinen sichtbaren Einfluss auf die Bev{\"o}lkerungsakzeptanz hat. Maßnahmen, die in der Bev{\"o}lkerung mehrheitlich unterst{\"u}tzt werden, f{\"u}hren nach gegenw{\"a}rtigen Projektionen nur zu geringen Treibhausgasreduktionen, so dass die Erreichung der Klimaziele 2030 ohne kontroverse Maßnahmen wie h{\"o}here CO2-Preise oder einer fl{\"a}chendeckenden Maut unwahrscheinlich ist. Um die Bef{\"u}rwortung von gegenw{\"a}rtig kontroversen Maßnahmen zu erh{\"o}hen, ist es notwendig, sichtbare R{\"u}ckverteilungsmechanismen zu etablieren, Maßnahmen durch gruppenspezifische Kommunikation zu begleiten und die Einf{\"u}hrung von Politikinstrumenten strategisch zu sequenzieren.}, language = {de} } @techreport{FlachslandausdemMooreMuelleretal., type = {Working Paper}, author = {Flachsland, Christian and aus dem Moore, Nils and M{\"u}ller, Thorsten and Kemmerzell, J{\"o}rg and Edmondson, Duncan and G{\"o}rlach, Benjamin and Kalkuhl, Matthias and Knodt, Mich{\`e}le and Knopf, Brigitte and Levi, Sebastian and Luderer, Gunnar and Pahle, Michael}, title = {Wie die Governance der deutschen Klimapolitik gest{\"a}rkt werden kann. Ariadne-Kurzdossier.}, pages = {1-26}, abstract = {Von der Sektorkopplung bis zum Wasserstoff, von der Umsetzung des Klimaschutzgesetzes bis hin zum europ{\"a}ischen Green Deal: Um Klimaneutralit{\"a}t zu erreichen, braucht es eine koordinierte und effektive Politiksteuerung {\"u}ber einzelne Ressorts hinweg. Klimapolitik ist Querschnittsaufgabe, denn von der Stromerzeugung {\"u}ber Industrie, Geb{\"a}ude und Verkehr bis hin zur Landwirtschaft m{\"u}ssen alle Sektoren mit hohem Tempo treibhausgasneutral werden. Fachleute des vom Bundesministerium f{\"u}r Bildung und Forschung BMBF gef{\"o}rderten Kopernikus-Projekts Ariadne haben zentrale Probleme der staatlichen Steuerung deutscher Klimapolitik untersucht und L{\"o}sungsoptionen vorgelegt.}, language = {de} } @techreport{FlachslandLevi, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Flachsland, Christian and Levi, Sebastian}, title = {Das deutsche Klimaschutzgesetz: M{\"o}glichkeiten einer sektor{\"u}bergreifenden Klimagovernance. Ariadne-Hintergrund.}, pages = {1-33}, abstract = {Trotz des erheblichen Ausbaus der erneuerbaren Energien in der Vergangenheit hat Deutschland Schwierigkeiten, seine nationalen Klimaschutzziele zu erf{\"u}llen. Als Reaktion darauf hat der Deutsche Bundestag im Jahr 2019 ein nationales Klimaschutzgesetz (KSG) verabschiedet. In diesem Bericht analysieren wir die Governance der deutschen Klimapolitik vor der Verabschiedung des KSG, die wichtigsten Gestaltungselemente des KSG und das Potenzial des KSG, die Integration der deutschen Klimagovernance zu verbessern. Dabei stellen wir fest, dass die deutsche Klimagovernance vor dem KSG nur m{\"a}ßig integriert war. Mit der Einf{\"u}hrung des KSG und der dort spezifizierten Sektorziele wird Klimaschutz jedoch zu einem priorit{\"a}ren Politikziel in allen wirtschaftlichen Sektoren. Dar{\"u}ber hinaus k{\"o}nnen die im KSG beschlossenen Monitorings- und Nachsteuerungs-Bestimmungen dazu f{\"u}hren, dass sektorspezifische Maßnahmen {\"u}ber die Zeit immer besser mit den nationalen Klimaschutz-Zielen abgestimmt werden. Insgesamt f{\"o}rdert das KSG hierbei jedoch eher eine multisektorale als eine sektor{\"u}bergreifende Klimagovernance und vers{\"a}umt es dabei, die Koordinierung zwischen Sektoren und Ministerien zu st{\"a}rken.}, language = {de} } @article{FlachslandLevi, author = {Flachsland, Christian and Levi, Sebastian}, title = {Germany's Federal Climate Change Act}, series = {Environmental Politics}, volume = {30}, journal = {Environmental Politics}, number = {sup1}, doi = {10.1080/09644016.2021.1980288}, pages = {118 -- 140}, abstract = {Despite significant renewable energy expansion in the past, Germany has encountered difficulties in meeting its national greenhouse gas emission targets. In response, Germany adopted the Federal Climate Change Act (CCA) in 2019. We analyze the state of climate governance in Germany before the CCA, the main design elements of the CCA, and assess the potential of the CCA to change German climate governance. Drawing on policy integration theory and 26 semi-structured interviews with senior policymakers and stakeholders, we find that German climate governance before the CCA was only moderately integrated. The sectoral emission targets legislated by the CCA make climate change mitigation a priority sector goal in non-energy sectors, and CCA provisions for monitoring, assessing and implementing policy reforms promise to enhance alignment of instruments with targets over time. Overall, the CCA advances a multi- rather than cross-sector climate governance, failing to advance coordination across sectors and ministries.}, language = {en} } @techreport{EdmondsonFlachslandausdemMooreetal., type = {Working Paper}, author = {Edmondson, Duncan and Flachsland, Christian and aus dem Moore, Nils and Koch, Nicolas and Koller, Florian and Gruhl, Henri and Brehm, Johannes and Levi, Sebastian}, title = {Bewertung klimapolitischer Instrumentenmix-Pfade - Eine Anwendung auf leichte Nutzfahrzeuge in Deutschland}, publisher = {Kopernikus-Projekt Ariadne}, address = {Potsdam}, pages = {156}, language = {de} } @techreport{FlachslandSteckelJakobetal., type = {Working Paper}, author = {Flachsland, Christian and Steckel, Jan and Jakob, Michael and Fahl, Ulrich and Feist, Marian and G{\"o}rlach, Benjamin and K{\"u}hner, Ann-Kathrin and T{\"a}nzler, Dennis and Zeller, Marie}, title = {Eckpunkte zur Entwicklung einer Klimaaußenpolitikstrategie Deutschlands}, publisher = {Kopernikus-Projekt Ariadne}, address = {Potsdam}, pages = {38}, abstract = {Eine koh{\"a}rente Klimaaußenpolitik (KAP) Deutschlands ist essentiell f{\"u}r das Gelingen sowohl der nationalen und europ{\"a}ischen Energiewende als auch f{\"u}r die effektive Unterst{\"u}tzung ambitionierter Klimapolitik außerhalb der Europ{\"a}ischen Union. Ziel dieses Ariadne-Hintergrundpapiers ist es, einen Diskussionsbeitrag zur Strukturierung der Debatte um die Eckpunkte und Optionen zur Ausarbeitung und Weiterentwicklung der deutschen KAP-Strategie zu leisten. Dazu werden vier Kategorien relevanter Ziele unterschieden. Diese reichen von klassischen klimapolitischen Zielen {\"u}ber industriepolitische sowie sicherheits- und handelspolitische Ziele hin zu breiteren außenpolitischen Zielen. F{\"u}r jedes Ziel m{\"u}ssen entsprechende Mittel identifiziert werden, mit denen es erreicht werden kann, und Barrieren, die ihm im Weg stehen und entsprechend bedacht werden m{\"u}ssen. F{\"u}r die Charakterisierung und Analyse verschiedener Mittel werden f{\"u}nf Kategorien vorgeschlagen. Eine zentrale, aber in der Bewertung konzeptionell und empirisch herausfordernde Kategorie ist dabei das Transformationspotenzial einer Maßnahme. Im Fall von Zielkonflikten und begrenzten Ressourcen m{\"u}ssen Ziele priorisiert werden. Wir skizzieren daf{\"u}r einen analytischen Rahmen und diskutieren illustrativ m{\"o}gliche Optionen zur strategischen Gesamtausrichtung. Diese umfassen zum einen KAP-Gesamtstrategien von Staaten gegen{\"u}ber allen anderen L{\"a}ndern, und zum anderen Strategien f{\"u}r spezifische Staaten (z.B. die deutsche Strategie f{\"u}r den Umgang mit Indien oder S{\"u}dafrika). Dabei k{\"o}nnen Strategien in einem Kontinuum von maximaler Priorisierung von Klimazielen (Klimapolitik First) bis hin zur nachrangigen Behandlung (Klimapolitik als Mittel zum Zweck) verortet und entsprechend ausgestaltet werden. Neben den Inhalten der Strategie werden Fragen der Organisation und Koordination in der Entwicklung und Implementierung der KAP-Strategie in den Blick genommen und die n{\"a}chsten Schritte diskutiert. Eine erfolgreiche KAP-Strategie sollte dabei von Beginn an zwischen zentralen Stakeholdern im In- und Ausland in jeweils geeigneten Formaten erarbeitet, implementiert und im Sinne eines Lernprozesses fortlaufend angepasst werden. Eine KAP sollte sich in die breitere Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik Deutschlands einf{\"u}gen, da relevante Politikfelder auf verschiedenen Ebenen eng miteinander verbunden sind. Bei der Erarbeitung der neuen KAP-Strategie der Bundesregierung sollte dazu insbesondere auf Koh{\"a}renz zur deutschen Sicherheits- und der Chinastrategie geachtet werden. Grundlage der Strategieentwicklung ist die Kl{\"a}rung m{\"o}glicher Ziele und Mittel der deutschen KAP und ihrer Wechselwirkungen miteinander. Eine KAP-Strategie muss durch Analysen zu Umsetzbarkeit und Kosten, politischen Widerst{\"a}nden und Zielkonflikten informiert sein und die normativen Vorgaben der deutschen Außenpolitik ber{\"u}cksichtigen.}, language = {de} } @techreport{ZwarEdenhoferRuzelyteetal., type = {Working Paper}, author = {Zwar, Claudia and Edenhofer, Jacob and Ruzelyte, Victoria and Edmondson, Duncan and Flachsland, Christian}, title = {Mapping variation in institutions for climate policymaking - Climate institutions in Germany, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Australia}, publisher = {Kopernikus-Projekt Ariadne}, address = {Potsdam}, pages = {91}, language = {en} } @techreport{SchlackeKnodtFlachslandetal., type = {Working Paper}, author = {Schlacke, Sabine and Knodt, Mich{\`e}le and Flachsland, Christian and M{\"u}ller, Thorsten and Findeisen, Francesco and Kemmerzell, J{\"o}rg and Maruschke, Jana and Plate, Christoph and Sulerz, Julia and Thierjung, Eva-Maria}, title = {Die Handlungsf{\"a}higkeit des deutschen Staates in der Klima- und Energiepolitik}, publisher = {Kopernikus-Projekt Ariadne}, address = {Potsdam}, doi = {10.48485/pik.2025.014}, pages = {13}, language = {de} } @techreport{FlachslandEdenhoferZwar, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Flachsland, Christian and Edenhofer, Jacob and Zwar, Claudia}, title = {Eine vertane Chance, aber keine Katastrophe: Die Novelle des Bundes-Klimaschutzgesetzes}, series = {Verfassungsblog}, journal = {Verfassungsblog}, number = {2024/05/06}, doi = {10.59704/2c0758cc33ed9dc3}, language = {de} } @article{CallaghanBanischDoebbelingHildebrandtetal., author = {Callaghan, Max and Banisch, Lucy and Doebbeling-Hildebrandt, Niklas and Edmondson, Duncan and Flachsland, Christian and Lamb, William F. and Levi, Sebastian and M{\"u}ller-Hansen, Finn and Posada, Eduardo and Vasudevan, Shraddha and Minx, Jan C.}, title = {Machine learning map of climate policy literature reveals disparities between scientific attention, policy density, and emissions}, series = {npj Climate Action}, volume = {4}, journal = {npj Climate Action}, publisher = {Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, issn = {2731-9814}, doi = {10.1038/s44168-024-00196-0}, abstract = {Current climate mitigation policies are not sufficient to meet the Paris temperature target, and ramping up efforts will require rapid learning from the scientific literature on climate policies. This literature is vast and widely dispersed, as well as hard to define and categorise, hampering systematic efforts to learn from it. We use a machine learning pipeline using transformer-based language models to systematically map the relevant scientific literature on climate policies at scale and in real-time. Our "living systematic map" of climate policy research features a set of 84,990 papers, and classifies each of them by policy instrument type, sector, and geography. We explore how the distribution of these papers varies across countries, and compare this to the distribution of emissions and enacted climate policies. Results suggests a potential stark under-representation of industry sector policies, as well as diverging attention between science and policy with respect to economic and regulatory instruments.}, language = {en} } @article{EdmondsonFlachslandausdemMooreetal., author = {Edmondson, Duncan and Flachsland, Christian and aus dem Moore, Nils and Koch, Nicolas and Koller, Florian and Gruhl, Henri and Brehm, Johannes}, title = {Anticipatory climate policy mix pathways: a framework for ex-ante construction and assessment applied to the road transport sector}, series = {Climate Policy}, journal = {Climate Policy}, issn = {1469-3062}, doi = {10.1080/14693062.2024.2397440}, language = {en} } @article{EdenhoferFlachsland, author = {Edenhofer, Ottmar and Flachsland, Christian}, title = {Eckpunkte einer CO2-Preisreform f{\"u}r Deutschland}, edition = {MCC Working paper 1/2018}, publisher = {Potsdam-Institut f{\"u}r Klimafolgenforschung \& Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) gemeinn{\"u}tzige GmbH}, pages = {23}, abstract = {.}, language = {de} } @article{LeipprandFlachslandPahle, author = {Leipprand, Anna and Flachsland, Christian and Pahle, Michael}, title = {Energy transition on the rise : discourses on energy future in the German parliament}, series = {Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research}, journal = {Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research}, number = {3}, publisher = {30}, doi = {10.1080/13511610.2016.1215241}, pages = {283 -- 305}, abstract = {In this paper we describe energy policy discourses and their story-lines in German parliamentary debates, and trace their evolution over the past decades. Through content analysis and coding with MAXQDA, changes in the discourses and in the use of story-lines by different political parties are analyzed. Our study shows that while the concept of a transition towards a nuclear-free, renewables-based energy system became hegemonic within three decades, the discourse itself underwent major changes. Energy Transition was de-radicalized and became part of a discourse of Ecological Modernization, thus aligning with mainstream economic logic. There are still considerable differences in the story-lines narrated by parliamentarians about pathways to Energy Transition and its effects. Discursive struggles into the meaning and the means of the transition project continue, suggesting that discourse structuration is far from complete.}, language = {en} } @article{DoebbelingHildebrandtMierschKhannaetal., author = {D{\"o}bbeling-Hildebrandt, Niklas and Miersch, Klaas and Khanna, Tarun M. and Bachelet, Marion and Bruns, Stephan B. and Callaghan, Max and Edenhofer, Ottmar and Flachsland, Christian and Forster, Piers M. and Kalkuhl, Matthias and Koch, Nicolas and Lamb, William F. and Ohlendorf, Nils and Steckel, Jan Christoph and Minx, Jan C.}, title = {Systematic review and meta-analysis of ex-post evaluations on the effectiveness of carbon pricing}, series = {Nature Communications}, volume = {15}, journal = {Nature Communications}, publisher = {Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, issn = {2041-1723}, doi = {10.1038/s41467-024-48512-w}, abstract = {Today, more than 70 carbon pricing schemes have been implemented around the globe, but their contributions to emissions reductions remains a subject of heated debate in science and policy. Here we assess the effectiveness of carbon pricing in reducing emissions using a rigorous, machine-learning assisted systematic review and meta-analysis. Based on 483 effect sizes extracted from 80 causal ex-post evaluations across 21 carbon pricing schemes, we find that introducing a carbon price has yielded immediate and substantial emission reductions for at least 17 of these policies, despite the low level of prices in most instances. Statistically significant emissions reductions range between -5\% to -21\% across the schemes (-4\% to -15\% after correcting for publication bias). Our study highlights critical evidence gaps with regard to dozens of unevaluated carbon pricing schemes and the price elasticity of emissions reductions. More rigorous synthesis of carbon pricing and other climate policies is required across a range of outcomes to advance our understanding of "what works" and accelerate learning on climate solutions in science and policy.}, language = {en} } @article{AmbergausdemMooreBekketal., author = {Amberg, Maximilian and aus dem Moore, Nils and Bekk, Anke and Bergmann, Tobias and Edenhofer, Ottmar and Flachsland, Christian and George, Jan and Haywood, Luke and Heinemann, Maik and Held, Anne and Kalkuhl, Matthias and Kellner, Maximilian and Koch, Nicolas and Luderer, Gunnar and Meyer, Henrika and Nikodinoska, Dragana and Pahle, Michael and Roolfs, Christina and Schill, Wolf-Peter}, title = {Reformoptionen f{\"u}r ein nachhaltiges Steuer- und Abgabensystem. Wie Lenkungssteuern effektiv und gerecht f{\"u}r den Klima- und Umweltschutz ausgestaltet werden k{\"o}nnen}, series = {Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik}, volume = {23}, journal = {Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik}, number = {3}, doi = {10.1515/pwp-2021-0051}, pages = {165 -- 199}, abstract = {Steuern und Abgaben auf Produkte oder Verbrauch mit gesellschaftlichen Folgekosten (externe Kosten) - sogenannte Pigou- oder Lenkungssteuern - sind ein gesellschaftliches „Win-Win-Instrument". Sie verbessern die Wohlfahrt und sch{\"u}tzen gleichzeitig die Umwelt und das Klima. Dies wird erreicht, indem umweltsch{\"a}digende Aktivit{\"a}ten einen Preis bekommen, der m{\"o}glichst exakt der H{\"o}he des Schadens entspricht. Eine konsequente Bepreisung der externen Kosten nach diesem Prinzip k{\"o}nnte in Deutschland erhebliche zus{\"a}tzliche Einnahmen erbringen: Basierend auf bisherigen Studien zu externen Kosten w{\"a}ren zus{\"a}tzliche Einnahmen in der Gr{\"o}ßenordnung von 348 bis 564 Milliarden Euro pro Jahr (44 bis 71 Prozent der gesamten Steuereinnahmen) m{\"o}glich. Die Autoren warnen allerdings, dass die Bezifferung der externen Kosten mit erheblichen Unsicherheiten verbunden ist. Damit Lenkungssteuern und -abgaben ihre positiven Lenkungs- und Wohlstandseffekte voll entfalten k{\"o}nnen, seien zudem institutionelle Reformen notwendig.}, language = {de} }