Mapping the Institutional Complex of the Climate-Energy Nexus

The Performance of the Climate-Energy Nexus

“…We illustrate that carbon-pricing institutions constitute a subfield of interconnected and interactive parts, which together perform crucial tasks of carbon taxing, emissions trading, and offsetting; all directed toward promoting wider carbon-pricing efforts. In this, we follow the argument of Sanderink et al (2016), as well as Zelli et al, and Sanderink et al in Chapters 2 and 3, that it is instructive to identify the membership, governance functions, and interlinkages between institutions within such a subfield of the climate-energy nexus.…”

“…It is no surprise then that the last ten years have seen a surge in international and transnational institutions aimed at promoting carbon pricing and carbon markets. A couple of such institutions have existed since the 1990s (most notably the International Emissions Trading Association, IETA), but most have appeared since 2007 (Sanderink et al 2016). These institutions have promoted carbon taxes and emissions trading, as well as systems for the offsetting of emissions.…”

Introduction

“…In this volume, three central issues at the intersection of climate and energy governance have been selected: renewable energy, fossil fuel subsidy reform, and carbon pricing. Comparing these three policy areas, it can be observed that they are characterized by multiple governance institutions and a patchwork of actors, rules, and decision-making processes (Van de Graaf and Colgan 2016; Sanderink et al 2017). Renewable energy, to take one example, is discussed not only within the United Nations (UN), but also in technology partnerships and international organizations such as the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), the Clean Energy Ministerial (CEM), the Climate Technology Initiative (CTI), Energy +, and in a number of private-public partnerships and private initiatives such as the Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (REN21) (Widerberg and Pattberg 2015;Sanderink et al 2017;Sovacool and Van de Graaf 2018).…”

“…Comparing these three policy areas, it can be observed that they are characterized by multiple governance institutions and a patchwork of actors, rules, and decision-making processes (Van de Graaf and Colgan 2016; Sanderink et al 2017). Renewable energy, to take one example, is discussed not only within the United Nations (UN), but also in technology partnerships and international organizations such as the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), the Clean Energy Ministerial (CEM), the Climate Technology Initiative (CTI), Energy +, and in a number of private-public partnerships and private initiatives such as the Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (REN21) (Widerberg and Pattberg 2015;Sanderink et al 2017;Sovacool and Van de Graaf 2018). Many of these institutions have overlapping mandates and memberships among governments and nongovernmental actors, while exercising different governance functions (Keohane and Victor 2011; see also Biermann et al 2009).…”

“…Second, while all studies share the starting assumption that institutional complexity matters, there are no systematic comparative analyses about how exactly it may affect the effectiveness or legitimacy of individual institutions or entire institutional complexes, or how certain actors may benefit or be disadvantaged in a complex governance architecture (Andresen and Hey 2005;Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen and McGee 2013;Bäckstrand et al 2018;Sovacool and Van de Graaf 2018). Third, in empirical terms, the scholarship on institutional interactions has mostly provided insights into dyadic relationships between two international regimes or public institutions composed by national governments (Oberthür and Gehring 2006;Chambers 2008;Young et al 2008;Gehring and Oberthür 2009;Oberthür and Stokke 2011), while placing less emphasis on broader governance interactions that also include hybrid, private, and informal institutions (Heubaum and Biermann 2015;Sanderink et al 2017).…”