@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{RaiserKornekFlachslandetal., author = {Raiser, Kilian and Kornek, Ulrike and Flachsland, Christian and Lamb, William F.}, title = {Is the Paris Agreement effective? A systematic map of the evidence}, series = {Environmental Research Letters}, volume = {15}, journal = {Environmental Research Letters}, number = {8}, doi = {10.1088/1748-9326/ab865c}, pages = {1 -- 16}, abstract = {The Paris Agreement (PA) sets out to strengthen the global response to climate change, setting targets for mitigation, adaptation, and finance, and establishing mechanisms through which to achieve these targets. The effectiveness of the PA's mechanisms in achieving its targets, however, has been questioned. This review systematically maps the peer-reviewed literature on the PA, categorizing the available evidence on whether or not the 'Paris Regime' can be effective. We split our analysis into three methodologically distinct sections: first we categorize the literature according to the mechanisms being studied. We find a diverse body of literature, albeit with a clear focus on mitigation, and identify adaptation and capacity building to be clear gaps. Second, we carry out a content analysis, identifying common drivers of, barriers to, and recommendations for effectiveness. Here we find mixed evidence, with potential drivers often qualified by more concrete barriers. Thirdly, we use scientometrics to identify six research clusters. These cover loss and damage, finance, legal issues, international politics, experimental evidence, and studies on tracking progress on the PA's targets. We conclude with a narrative discussion of our findings, presenting three central themes. First, transparency is widely considered a precondition for the PA to be institutionally effective. However, a lack of clear reporting standards and comparable information renders the PA's transparency provisions ineffective. Second, environmental effectiveness relies on national ambition, of which there is currently too little. It remains unclear to which extent the Paris Regime structure itself can induce significant ratcheting-up of ambition. Finally, the PA facilitates the diffusion of norms, enables learning and the sharing of best practices. This production of shared norms provides the most promising avenue for overcoming the current lack of ambition. One of the primary successes of the PA is in providing a platform for the exchange of experiences and ideas.}, language = {en} } @article{EdenhoferFlachslandKornek, author = {Edenhofer, Ottmar and Flachsland, Christian and Kornek, Ulrike}, title = {Der Grundriss f{\"u}r ein neues Klimaregime}, series = {ifo Schnelldienst}, volume = {69}, journal = {ifo Schnelldienst}, number = {3}, issn = {0018-974X}, pages = {11 -- 15}, language = {de} } @incollection{FlachslandEdenhoferKornek, author = {Flachsland, Christian and Edenhofer, Ottmar and Kornek, Ulrike}, title = {Koordinierte CO2-Preise : Ein Vorschlag zur Weiterentwicklung des Pariser Abkommens}, series = {Unter 2 Grad? Was der Weltklimavertrag wirklich bringt}, booktitle = {Unter 2 Grad? Was der Weltklimavertrag wirklich bringt}, editor = {M{\"u}ller, Michael and Sommer, J{\"o}rg}, publisher = {Hirzel}, address = {Stuttgart}, isbn = {978-3-7776-2570-6}, pages = {69 -- 78}, abstract = {Im Dezember 2015 wurde in Paris Geschichte geschrieben: Die Weltklimakonferenz einigte sich auf das erste Klimaschutzabkommen, das alle L{\"a}nder in die Pflicht nimmt. Damit bekennt sich die Weltgemeinschaft v{\"o}lkerrechtlich verbindlich zum Ziel, die Erderw{\"a}rmung auf unter zwei Grad zu begrenzen. Doch was ist dieses Paris-Abkommen wert? Wo liegen seine St{\"a}rken, welche Herausforderungen kommen auf die Weltgemeinschaft zu? Welche Risiken birgt es? Was muss jetzt politisch folgen? Expertinnen und Experten aus Wissenschaft, Politik, Medien und NGOs analysieren in diesem Buch Hintergr{\"u}nde, Inhalte und Konsequenzen des neuen Weltklimavertrages.}, language = {de} } @article{FussFlachslandKochetal., author = {Fuss, Sabine and Flachsland, Christian and Koch, Nicolas and Kornek, Ulrike and Knopf, Brigitte and Edenhofer, Ottmar}, title = {A Framework for Assessing the Performance of Cap-and-Trade Systems: Insights from the European Union Emissions Trading System}, series = {Review of Environmental Economics and Policy}, volume = {12}, journal = {Review of Environmental Economics and Policy}, number = {2}, issn = {1750-6816}, doi = {10.1093/reep/rey010}, pages = {220 -- 241}, abstract = {The performance of the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading System (ETS) and other cap-and-trade schemes has been under scrutiny because of their inability to create a stable price for greenhouse gas emissions. This article seeks to inform the often confusing debate about the economic performance of cap-and-trade systems over time, with a focus on the EU ETS. Based on a simple intertemporal framework of emissions trading and a review of the literature, we show that different frameworks and notions of efficiency result in both different assessments of performance and different recommended strategies for improving performance. More specifically, we argue that if cap-and-trade systems have temporal flexibility (i.e., they include banking and borrowing of emissions allowances), it can be highly misleading to base the economic assessment on short-term efficiency. We seek to draw attention to the concept of long-term economic performance, which takes into account the intertemporal nature of emissions trading systems. In particular, we identify market and government distortions (e.g., myopia, lack of policy credibility, excessive discounting) that may depress allowance prices and hamper intertemporal efficiency. We then examine whether the recently adopted Market Stability Reserve and the alternative price collar are likely to address these distortions.}, language = {en} } @article{DorschFlachslandKornek, author = {Dorsch, Marcel J. and Flachsland, Christian and Kornek, Ulrike}, title = {Building and enhancing climate policy ambition with transfers: allowance allocation and revenue spending in the EU ETS}, series = {Environmental Politics}, volume = {29}, journal = {Environmental Politics}, number = {5}, issn = {1743-8934}, doi = {10.1080/09644016.2019.1659576}, pages = {781 -- 803}, abstract = {Sustaining and increasing climate policy ambition in the presence of heterogeneous interests and potential veto players is a key challenge for climate governance. We examine the conceptual and empirical significance of transfers to balance heterogeneous interests and build support for raising climate policy ambition in the development of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). We provide insights into how to strategically sequence 'brown cushioning' and 'green push' policy incentives within the EU ETS to deliberately incentivize transformative change among actor constituencies towards decarbonization endogenously. The analysis demonstrates the significance of preventive and compensatory buy-in, via allowance allocation and revenue spending design, for the introduction and each major reform of the scheme. Given the potential for a substantially increasing value distributed within the EU ETS, future policy options should aim to strengthen the scheme's inherent incentives towards decarbonization and to prevent an increasing structural divide among EU member states.}, 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} }