@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} }