TY - JOUR A1 - Döbbeling-Hildebrandt, Niklas A1 - Miersch, Klaas A1 - Khanna, Tarun M. A1 - Bachelet, Marion A1 - Bruns, Stephan B. A1 - Callaghan, Max A1 - Edenhofer, Ottmar A1 - Flachsland, Christian A1 - Forster, Piers M. A1 - Kalkuhl, Matthias A1 - Koch, Nicolas A1 - Lamb, William F. A1 - Ohlendorf, Nils A1 - Steckel, Jan Christoph A1 - Minx, Jan C. T1 - Systematic review and meta-analysis of ex-post evaluations on the effectiveness of carbon pricing JF - Nature Communications N2 - 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. Y1 - 2024 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-48512-w SN - 2041-1723 VL - 15 PB - Springer Science and Business Media LLC ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Steckel, Jan Christoph A1 - Jakob, Michael A1 - Flachsland, Christian A1 - Kornek, Ulrike A1 - Lessmann, Kai A1 - Edenhofer, Ottmar T1 - From climate finance towards sustainable development finance JF - WIREs Climate Change N2 - 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. Y1 - 2016 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.437 VL - 8 IS - 1 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Jakob, Michael A1 - Lamb, William F. A1 - Steckel, Jan Christoph A1 - Flachsland, Christian A1 - Edenhofer, Ottmar T1 - Understanding different perspectives on economic growth and climate policy JF - WIREs Climate Change N2 - 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. KW - Climate Economics KW - degrowth KW - sustainability KW - transformation KW - well-being Y1 - 2020 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.677 SP - 1 EP - 17 ER -