Comparing emissions mitigation efforts across countries

Abstract

A natural outcome of the emerging pledge and review approach to international climate change policy is the interest in comparing mitigation effort among countries. Domestic publics and stakeholders will have an interest in knowing if peer countries are undertaking (or planning to undertake) comparable effort in mitigating their greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, if the aggregate effort is considered inadequate in addressing the risks posed by climate change, then this will likely prompt a broader interest in identifying those countries where greater effort is arguably warranted based on comparison with their peers. Both assessments require metrics of effort and comparisons among countries. We propose a framework for such an exercise, drawing from a set of principles for designing and implementing informative metrics. We present a template for organizing metrics on mitigation effort, for both ex ante and ex post review. We also provide preliminary assessments of effort along emissions, price, and cost metrics for post-2020 climate policy contributions by China, the European Union, Russia, and the United States. We close with a discussion of the role of academics and civil society in promoting transparency and facilitating the evaluation and comparison of effort.Policy Relevance Statement: Our paper presents a framework for the review of intended nationally determined contributions and the ex post review of contributions under the UNFCCC negotiations. We provide an illustration of this framework with an energy-economic model. Our work focuses on how countries may use the review to compare mitigation effort -planned under INDCs and delivered by implementation of the pledged contributions -to address concerns about equity, efficiency, competitiveness, and the stability of any agreement that arise in international negotiations.

Governing policy evaluation? Towards a new typology

“…This is particularly pertinent in the wake of the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC, 2015), whose backbone is a new, 5-year review and transparency mechanism. This mechanism strongly links with energetic and fastmoving debates on developing successful climate policy monitoring and evaluation arrangements (Aldy, 2014;Aldy and Pizer, 2015;Aldy et al, 2016;Feldman and Wilt, 1996;Fransen and Cronin, 2013;Jordan et al, 2015;Schoenefeld et al, 2016). Over time, national emission reduction targets are expected to become more stringent as the pledge and review mechanism kicks in (if not the probability of achieving the meta policy goal of keeping warming within two degrees Celsius will remain extremely low).…”

“…Aldy and Pizer, 2015;Aldy et al, 2016;Feldman and Wilt, 1996;Purdon, 2015;Schoenefeld et al, 2016). A single evaluator may also have greater resources than multiple smaller actors, which may translate into stronger evaluation capacities.…”

Economic tools to promote transparency and comparability in the Paris Agreement

“…We consider metrics-physical and economic outcomes such as emissions, prices, and aggregate economic activity-that are comprehensive, measurable and replicable, and universal 2,3 . No single metric satisfies all three principles.…”

Evaluating Mitigation Effort: Tools and Institutions for Assessing Nationally Determined Contributions

“…informal manner (Aldy, Pizer, and Akimoto 2015;Sabel and Victor 2015). This provides an opportunity to experiment with tools and processes for review that could eventually feed into a formal multilateral transparency mechanism.…”

“…Possibilities range from emissions metrics (emissions levels, emission intensities, and emission reductions from business as usual), price metrics (such as carbon and energy prices), and cost metrics (such as mitigation costs). Aldy, Pizer, and Akimoto (2015) conclude that no single metric is ideal, and thus recommend using a suite of metrics for comparing effort, just as an analyst would rely on a suite of economic indicators for characterizing the health of the macroeconomy. See Table 1 for further detail.…”