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]

This paper empirically explores the linkage between the economic opportunities and climate adaptation and other antecedents in cities. Our dependent variable includes the economic opportunities identified by the cities; our independent variables are the adaptation plans, adaptation actions, climate change risks, incentive types, and incentivized stakeholders. To explore the effects of climate change risks, adaptation plans, adaptation actions, incentive types, and incentivized stakeholders, we used polychoric factor analysis and logistic regression analysis. The results show that a city's climate change adaptation plan and GDP have significant positive relationships with the economic opportunities present in the cities. Meanwhile, climate change risks also have a positive relationship with economic opportunities. Furthermore, economic opportunities present in cities have a negative relationship with three variables: one group of climate actions and two groups of stakeholders. This paper also further discusses the possible effects of incentives in the case of climate change in cities. [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]