Search

This article explores recent climate policy developments in China, the United States (US), and the European Union (EU), as well as their implications for a new global climate regime, expected in December 2015 in Paris. The road to Paris is marked by a shift from global efforts to domestic actions on climate change mitigation, as well as a move from commitments to contributions to carbon emissions reduction. It is argued that the new regime is moving towards a voluntary national pledge and review system which deviates from the EU's desire for a legally binding climate treaty, bringing any Paris deal closer to the US's and China's vision of soft global governance for climate change. This puts a big question mark on whether and how a soft regime could potentially achieve an atmospheric CO2 concentration below 450 parts per million in order to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Union (EU), the US and Australia have each adopted, or are considering, free allocations to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries (EITEIs) in order to minimize emissions leakage and industrial offshoring resulting from climate policy. Differences in the design of these schemes, including how a country defines eligible EITEIs, the scale of allocation and the method of distribution, all have the potential to affect the outcomes of the programmes. In crafting their EITEI allocation formulas, policymakers in each country must balance three important priorities - the economic efficiency of the cap and trade programme, an equitable distribution of the programme's allowances and the effectiveness of the allocations in addressing leakage and competitiveness concerns. These three priorities provide a useful framework for considering the tradeoffs inherent in designing allocation schemes for EITEIs. Through this lens, policy approaches taken by the EU, US and Australia are evaluated with respect to four important questions of allocation policy design: the definition of EITEIs, the costs to be covered, the methodology for distributing allowances and the duration of free allocation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the international trade and climate change joint agenda. It states that trade-climate change intersection policies expanded to the European Union, World Trade Organization (WTO) and U.S. It notes that modern research contributions on the possible interactions between international climate and trade government are focused on international competitiveness, issues on greenhouse gas leakage, and problems related to the multilateral climate change contracts. It mentions that the agenda includes counteracting border measure that deals with international competition and free-rider problems, tariffs and non-tariff barriers to trade, investment and technology transfer of climate-friendly goods and services, and international aviation and maritime shipping industries issues.

Copyright of Desarrollo Económico is the property of Instituto de Desarrollo Economico y Social and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The issue of integrating environmental concerns into energy policy decision making is increasingly addressed, not least related to climate change. Although the United States, unlike the EU, did not sign the Kyoto Protocol, several U.S. states promote renewable electricity (RES-E), and some of these initiatives are linked to climate-change mitigation efforts. The present article assesses in this connection the six New England states of the United States, comparing their efforts of integrating RES-E with climate change to the Nordic countries in Europe. In order to explain different approaches, the article focuses on the importance of different EU and U.S. multilevel governing structures. The analysis indicates that the New England states' RES-E promotion thus far has not been substantially integrated with climate-change concerns, whereas in the EU's more top-down approach, climate change figures more prominently vis-à-vis RES-E. EU policies represent an increasingly important driver for the Nordic countries. In the United States, on the other hand, it remains an open question as to how future federal policy efforts will relate to existing policies at the state level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Individual countries are in the process of legislating responses to the challenges posed by climate change. The prospect of rising carbon prices raises concerns in these nations about the effects on the competitiveness of their own energy-intensive industries and the potential for carbon leakage, particularly leakage to emerging economies that lack comparable regulation. In response, certain developed countries are proposing controversial trade-related measures and allowance allocation designs to complement their climate policies. Missing from much of the debate on traderelated measures is a broader understanding of how climate policies implemented unilaterally (or subglobally) affect all countries in the global trading system. Arguably, the largest impacts are from the targeted carbon pricing itself, which generates macroeconomic effects, terms-of-trade changes, and shifts in global energy demand and prices; it also changes the relative prices of certain energy-intensive goods. This paper studies how climate policies implemented in certain major economies (the European Union and the United States) affect the global distribution of economic and environmental outcomes and how these outcomes may be altered by complementary policies aimed at addressing carbon leakage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author offers a comment on the article "The Global Effects of Subglobal Climate Policies," by Christoph Boehringer and colleagues, published in the issue. The author highlights the implications of the study, which examined cap-and-trade systems and climate policy in the U.S. and European Union (EU), in relation to international trade. He also discusses topics such as emissions reduction and carbon border adjustments.

This article introduces this special issue that deals with subnational (and, in the case of the European Union, sub-supranational) global climate change politics. While recognizing the limitations that face local governments, the article discusses the importance of focusing more attention on climate policies and programs of state (prefectural, provincial), regional, metropolitan, and local levels of government, where implementation of national climate change policies and programs must occur. Four cases are examined in detail: California within the United States, Germany within the European Union, prefectures and some municipalities (Tokyo and Kyoto) within Japan, and provinces and prefectures within China. The reasons why local governments sometimes choose to act as agenda setters are considered, the ways local governments can influence national government policies are discussed, the role of international networks in diffusing policy ideas among local governments is introduced, and the obstacles to affecting deep change at the local level are considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author reflects on the topics related to the U.S. environmental law at both the national and international level, focusing on the U.S. environmental policy under the administration by the U.S. President George W. Bush and the influence of U.S. Vice President Al Gore. The author discusses topics including the ordinances and directives of the European Union, the appointment of Ms. Rhett Bjerregaard as environment commissioner, the U.S. action plan on climate change.