Search

The ambitious goals to limit global warming can only be reached with a broad acceptance and participation of the general public. This paper relies on surveys among citizens in China, Germany and the U.S. and investigates the determinants of the acceptance of national and international adaptation and mitigation efforts. The empirical findings indicate that specific beliefs and environmental awareness are important drivers in all three countries, while political attitudes and socio-economic characteristics are the main sources of cross-country heterogeneity. The study thereby points at important starting points and target groups for raising the acceptance of national and international climate policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Farmers' adoption of climate change mitigation measures is key to successfully reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. This article investigates the role of non-cognitive skills, namely self-efficacy and locus of control, in farmers' uptake of mitigation measures. The study is based on a combination of survey and census data from 105 farmers in Switzerland. Almost all farmers in our sample already adopt some of the considered measures to reduce greenhouse gases on their farm. On average, 37% of the mitigation measures available to the specific farm type are adopted. We find that a one standard deviation increase in non-cognitive skills is associated with a 20 to 40% higher share of adopted mitigation measures. This relationship is robust to the inclusion of a comprehensive vector of controls, inspired both from the agricultural economics and the psychology literature. Additionally, we find that omitted variable bias would need to be implausibly large to refute our findings. Finally, we explore potential mechanisms. The suggested pathway through which non-cognitive skills are associated with the adoption of climate change mitigation measures is the innovativeness of the farmers. Fostering farmers' non-cognitive skills could be an effective policy lever to accelerate the diffusion of climate change mitigation measures. • Understanding farmers' climate change mitigation behavior is key for reducing agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. • Non-cognitive skills are positively associated with adoption of mitigation measures adoption. • Innovativeness is the suggested mechanism towards the uptake of greenhouse gas mitigation measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International transfers in climate policy channeled from the industrialized to the developing world either support the mitigation of climate change or the adaptation to global warming. From a purely allocative point of view, transfers supporting mitigation tend to be Pareto-improving whereas this is not very likely in the case of adaptation support. We illustrate this by regarding transfer schemes currently applied under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto framework. However, if we enrich the analysis by integrating distributional aspects, we find that international adaptation funding may help both the developing and developed world. Interestingly this is not due to altruistic incentives, but due to follow-up effects on international negotiations on climate change mitigation. We argue that the lack of fairness perceived by developing countries in the international climate policy arena can be reduced by the support of adaptation in these countries. As we show – taking into account different fairness concepts – this might raise the prospects of success in international negotiations on climate change. Yet, we find that the influence of transfers may induce different fairness effects on climate change mitigation negotiations to run counter. We discuss whether current transfer schemes under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto framework adequately serve the distributive and allocative objectives pursued in international climate policy. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

We use behavioral and experimental economics to study a particular aspect of the economics of climate change: the potential trade-off between countries'' investments in mitigation versus adaptation. While mitigation of greenhouse gases can be viewed as a public good, adaptation to climate change is a private good, benefiting only the country or the individual that invests in adaptation. We use a one-shot public-goods game that deviates from the standard public-goods game by introducing a stochastic term to account for probabilistic destruction in a climate-change setting, where the probability density function is mapped to within-group levels of mitigation. We compare low-vulnerability and high-vulnerability treatments by varying the magnitude of disaster across treatments. Our results show that there is no significant difference in the level of mitigation across these treatments. Further, our results emphasize the role of trust in enhancing cooperation. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]