@incollection{EdenhoferFlachslandJakob, author = {Edenhofer, Ottmar and Flachsland, Christian and Jakob, Michael}, title = {The Atmosphere as a Global Commons - Challenges for International Cooperation and Governance}, series = {The Handbook on the Macroeconomics of Climate Change}, booktitle = {The Handbook on the Macroeconomics of Climate Change}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, isbn = {978-0199856978}, pages = {260 -- 296}, language = {en} } @article{FlachslandJakobSteckeletal.2014, author = {Flachsland, Christian and Jakob, Michael and Steckel, Jan C. and Baumstark, Lavinia}, title = {Climate Finance for Developing Country Mitigation: Blessing or Curse?}, series = {Climate and Development}, volume = {7}, journal = {Climate and Development}, number = {1}, publisher = {Taylor \& Francis}, issn = {1756-5537}, doi = {10.1080/17565529.2014.934768}, pages = {1 -- 15}, year = {2014}, abstract = {Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, industrialized countries have agreed to cover the incremental costs of climate change mitigation in developing countries and recent climate negotiations have reaffirmed the central role of climate finance for global mitigation efforts. We use an integrated energy-economy-climate model to assess the potential magnitude of financial transfers to developing countries that can be expected under non-market transfer mechanisms as well as international emission trading with several allocation schemes. Our results indicate that for the latter, depending on international permit allocation rules financial transfers to developing countries could reach almost USD bln 400 per year in 2020, with Sub-Saharan Africa receiving financial inflows of as much as 14.5\% of its GDP. Reviewing the literature on natural resource revenues, official development assistance and foreign direct investment, we identify three major channels through which such sizable financial inflows may induce harmful effects for recipients: volatility, Dutch disease, and rent-seeking and corruption. We discuss the relevance of these mechanisms for climate finance and identify institutional arrangements which could help to avoid a 'climate finance curse'. We conclude that there is no deterministic relationship between financial inflows and adverse consequences, as the most serious problems could be prevented or at least alleviated by appropriately designed policies and governance provisions.}, language = {en} } @article{FlachslandMarschinskiJakob, author = {Flachsland, Christian and Marschinski, Robert and Jakob, Michael}, title = {Sectoral Linking of carbon markets: A trade-theory analysis}, series = {Resource and Energy Economics}, volume = {34}, journal = {Resource and Energy Economics}, number = {4}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Mexico}, issn = {1873-0221}, doi = {10.1016/j.reseneeco.2012.05.005}, pages = {585 -- 606}, abstract = {The linking of emission trading systems (ETS) is a widely discussed policy option for future international cooperation on climate change. Benefits are expected from efficiency gains and the alleviation of concerns over competitiveness. However, from trade-theory it is known that due to general equilibrium effects and market distortions, linking may not always be beneficial for all participating countries. Following-up on this debate, we use a Ricardo-Viner type general equilibrium model to study the implications of sectoral linking on carbon emissions ('leakage'), competitiveness, and welfare. By comparing pre- and post-linking equilibria, we show analytically how global emissions can increase if one of the 'linked' countries lacks an economy-wide emissions cap, although in case of a link across idiosyncratic sectors a decrease of emissions ('anti-leakage') is also possible. If - as a way to address concerns about competitiveness - a link between the EU ETS and a hypothetical US system is established, the partial emission coverage of the EU ETS can lead to the creation of new distortions between the non-covered domestic and international sector. Finally, we show how the welfare effect from linking can be decomposed into gains-from-trade and terms-of-trade contributions, and how the latter can make the overall effect ambiguous.}, language = {en} } @techreport{FlachslandEdenhoferJakobetal., type = {Working Paper}, author = {Flachsland, Christian and Edenhofer, Ottmar and Jakob, Michael and Steckel, Jan}, title = {Developing the International Carbon Market : Linking Options for the EU ETS ; Report to the Policy Planning Staff in the Federal Foreign Office}, pages = {105 S.}, language = {en} } @techreport{EdenhoferFlachslandJakobetal., type = {Working Paper}, author = {Edenhofer, Ottmar and Flachsland, Christian and Jakob, Michael and Lessmann, Kai}, title = {The Atmosphere as a Global Commons - Challenges for International Cooperation and Governance. MCC working paper 1-2013, and Discussion Paper 2013-58, Harvard Project on Climate Agreements, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School}, language = {en} } @article{SteckelJakobFlachslandetal., author = {Steckel, Jan Christoph and Jakob, Michael and Flachsland, Christian and Kornek, Ulrike and Lessmann, Kai and Edenhofer, Ottmar}, title = {From climate finance towards sustainable development finance}, series = {WIREs Climate Change}, volume = {8}, journal = {WIREs Climate Change}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1002/wcc.437}, pages = {8}, abstract = {Decarbonizing the global energy system requires large-scale investment flows, with a central role for international climate finance to mobilize private funds. The willingness to provide international finance in accordance with common but differentiated responsibilities was acknowledged by the broad endorsement of the Paris Agreement, and the Green Climate Funds in particular. The international community aims to mobilize at least USD 100 billion per year for mitigation and adaption in developing countries. In this article, we argue that too little attention has been paid on the spending side of climate finance, both in the political as well as the academic debate. To this end, we review the challenges encountered in project-based approaches of allocating climate finance in the past. In contrast to project-based finance, we find many advantages to spending climate finance in support of price-based national policies. First, the support for international climate cooperation is improved when efforts of successively rising domestic carbon pricing levels are compensated. Second, carbon pricing sets incentives for least-cost mitigation. Third, investing domestic revenues from emission pricing schemes could advance a country's individual development goals and ensure the recipient's 'ownership' of climate policies. We conclude that by reconciling the global goal of cost-efficient mitigation with national policy priorities, climate finance for carbon pricing could become a central pillar of sustainable development and promote international cooperation to achieve the climate targets laid down in the Paris Agreement.}, language = {en} } @article{EdenhoferKnopfBurghausetal., author = {Edenhofer, Ottmar and Knopf, Brigitte and Burghaus, Kerstin and Flachsland, Christian and Jakob, Michael and Koch, Nicolas}, title = {Shifting Paradigms in Carbon Pricing}, series = {Intereconomics}, volume = {53}, journal = {Intereconomics}, number = {3}, doi = {10.1007/s10272-018-0735-6}, pages = {135 -- 140}, abstract = {Carbon pricing is essential to achieve a reduction in global CO2 emissions. A carbon price can either be set directly via a carbon tax (price control) or be achieved through a cap-and-trade system (quantity control). While there has been much debate about the relative merits of each approach, cap-and-trade systems have been favoured in the political arena. In principle, they offer the most straightforward way to achieve a country's emission reduction target by simply setting the cap at the remaining emission budget. Existing emissions trading schemes (ETSs) can be found in Europe, California and Qu{\´e}bec, for example.}, language = {en} } @incollection{DasguptaEdenhoferAmezquitaetal., author = {Dasgupta, Purnamita and Edenhofer, Ottmar and Amezquita, Adriana Mercedes Avendano and Bento, Antonio M. and Caney, Simon and De la Croix, David and Fosu, Augustin Kwasi and Jakob, Michael and Saam, Marianne and Shrader-Frechette, Kristin and Flachsland, Christian and Weyant, John and You, Liangzhi and Delgado-Ramos, Gian and Dorsch, Marcel J. and Klenert, David and Lempert, Robert and Leroux, Justin and Lessmann, Kai and Liu, Junguo and Mattauch, Linus and Perrings, Charles and Schwerhoff, Gregor and Seyboth, Kristin and Streckel, Jan}, title = {Economic Growth, Human Development, and Welfare}, series = {Rethinking Society for the 21st Century Report of the International Panel on Social Progress}, booktitle = {Rethinking Society for the 21st Century Report of the International Panel on Social Progress}, publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, isbn = {9781108399661}, doi = {10.1017/9781108399661}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {139 -- 184}, abstract = {Economic Growth, Human Development, and Welfare" of the 2018 Report of the International Panel on Social Progress (IPSP). Mission of the IPSP: The International Panel on Social Progress (IPSP) will harness the competence of hundreds of experts about social issues and will deliver a report addressed to all social actors, movements, organizations, politicians and decision-makers, in order to provide them with the best expertise on questions that bear on social change. The Panel will seek consensus whenever possible but will not hide controversies and will honestly present up-to-date arguments and analyses, and debates about them, in an accessible way. The Panel will have no partisan political agenda, but will aim at restoring hope in social progress and stimulating intellectual and public debates. Different political and philosophical views may conceive of social progress in different ways, emphasizing values such as freedom, dignity, or equality. The Panel will retain full independence from political parties, governments, and organizations with a partisan agenda. While the Panel will primarily work for the dissemination of knowledge to all relevant actors in society, it will also foster research on the topics it will study and help to revive interest for research in social long-term prospective analysis}, language = {en} } @article{LeviFlachslandJakob, author = {Levi, Sebastian and Flachsland, Christian and Jakob, Michael}, title = {Political Economy Determinants of Carbon Pricing}, series = {Global Environmental Politics}, volume = {20}, journal = {Global Environmental Politics}, number = {2}, issn = {1526-3800}, doi = {10.1162/glep_a_00549}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-35698}, pages = {128 -- 156}, abstract = {Carbon pricing is widely considered a key policy instrument for achieving substantial climate change mitigation. However, implementation remains patchy and price levels vary significantly across countries and regions. In this article, we analyze the structural social, political, and economic conditions under which carbon prices have been implemented so far. We estimate a Tobit regression model to investigate variations in explicit carbon prices over 262 national and subnational jurisdictions. Our results highlight well-governed institutions and public attitudes as the most important conditions for carbon pricing and characterize fossil fuel consumption as a barrier to the implementation of carbon prices. The results suggest that governance and public attitude need to be integrated into political economy analysis. Policy makers should take regulatory capacities and public attitudes seriously when designing carbon pricing policies.}, language = {en} } @article{JakobLambSteckeletal., author = {Jakob, Michael and Lamb, William F. and Steckel, Jan Christoph and Flachsland, Christian and Edenhofer, Ottmar}, title = {Understanding different perspectives on economic growth and climate policy}, series = {WIREs Climate Change}, journal = {WIREs Climate Change}, doi = {10.1002/wcc.677}, pages = {1 -- 17}, abstract = {Should economic growth continue in a world threatened by the prospect of catastrophic climate change? The scientific and public debate has brought forth a broad spectrum of views and narratives on this question, ranging from neoclassical economics to degrowth. We argue that different positions can be attributed to underlying differences in views on (a) factors that determine human well-being, (b) the feasibility and desirability of economic growth, (c) appropriate intervention points, and (d) preferences about governance and policy options. For each of these dimensions, we propose points of agreement on which a consensus between conflicting positions might be achieved. From this basis, we distill a sustainability transition perspective that could act as a basis for a renewed debate on how to align human well-being with environmental sustainability.}, 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{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} }