Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (33)
- Part of a Book (24)
- Working Paper (16)
- Contribution to a Periodical (4)
- Editorship book (1)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
Keywords
- Variable renewables (3)
- Integrated assessment modeling (2)
- Integration costs (2)
- Solar power (2)
- Wind power (2)
- Climate Economics (1)
- Climate-change policy (1)
- Co-benefits (1)
- EU ETS (1)
- Electricity market design (1)
Summary for Policymakers
(2014)
Technical Summary
(2014)
Die Nutzung globaler Gemeinschaftsgüter: Politökonomische Heraus forderungen an die Klimapolitik
(2012)
Die Nutzung globaler Gemeinschaftsgüter: Politökonomische Herausforderungen an die Klimapolitik.
(2012)
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.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has proven its value as an institution for large-scale scientific collaboration to synthesize and assess large volumes of climate research for use by policy-makers, as well as for establishing credibility of findings among diverse national governments. But the IPCC has received considerable criticism of both its substance and process. The new IPCC leadership to be elected in October could help guide the IPCC to a clear, shared understanding of future objectives and could shape procedural reforms. We identify key opportunities for reform by addressing two related questions: Is the IPCC doing the right things? Is the IPCC doing things right?
Even without internationally concerted action on climate change mitigation, there are important incentives for countries to put a price on their domestic emissions, including public finance considerations, internalizing the climate impacts of their own emissions, and co-benefits, such as clean air or energy security. Whereas these arguments have been mostly discussed in separate strands of literature, this article carries out a synthesis that exemplifies how policies to put a price on emissions can be conceptualized in a multi-objective framework. Despite considerable uncertainty, empirical evidence suggests that different countries may face quite different incentives for emission pricing. For instance, avoided climate damages and co-benefits of reduced air pollution appear to be the main motivation for emission pricing in China, while for the US generating public revenue dominates and for the EU all three motivations are of intermediate importance. We finally argue that such unilateral incentives could form the basis for incremental progress in international climate negotiations toward a realistic climate treaty based on national interest and differentiated emission pricing and describe how such an agreement could be put into practice.
Climate Policies for road transport revisited (II): Closing the policy gap with cap-and-trade
(2011)
Model analysis within the ADAM project has shown that achieving low greenhouse gas concentration levels, e.g. at 400ppm CO 2 -eq, is technologically feasible at costs of a few percent of GDP. However, models simplify the dynamics involved in implementing climate policy and the results depend on critical model assumptions such as global participation in climate policy and full availability of current and newly evolving technologies. The design of a low stabilization policy regime in the real world depends on factors that can only be partly covered by models. In this context, the paper reflects on limits of the integrated assessment models used to explore climate policy and addresses the issues of (i) how global participation might be achieved, (ii) which kind of options are available to induce deep GHG reductions inside and outside the energy sector, and (iii) which risks and which co-benefits of mitigation options are not assessed by the models.
Auf mehreren Ebenen Agieren
(2013)