Norm Conflict in Climate Governance: Greenhouse Gas Accounting and the Problem of Consumption

Harris, Paul G.; Symons, Jonathan

doi:10.1162/glep_a_00151

Cited by 31 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In production‐based accounting, emissions are assigned to the jurisdiction where the emitting good is produced, but in consumption‐based accounting, emissions are assigned to jurisdictions where goods are consumed. Production‐based accounting schemes encourage developed countries to import goods with large greenhouse gas footprints, a process the authors call “emissions off shoring” (Harris & Symons, , p. 15). Policy agreements that consider only production‐based emissions may encourage off shoring and inhibit the enactment of consumption‐reducing policies.…”

Section: Patterns and Developments In The Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Governing Complexity: Recent Developments in Environmental Politics and Policy

Fahey¹,

Pralle²

2016

Policy Studies Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using a large sample of articles and books published between 2012 and 2015, this review shows the recent trends in environmental politics and policy scholarship. Environmental policy scholarship has embraced the concept of governance to explain the variety of actors and institutions that surround environmental problems and solutions. Scholars in the past three years used theories and methods to capture these governing dynamics in far-reaching and complicated issues like climate change. This article discusses recent patterns in the literature and demonstrates that new methods, recent theoretical focuses, and even the environmental issues covered by scholars reflect the field's acknowledgement that scholars can and should account for complexity in their work. However, the literature has neglected certain regions and processes, such as the developing world and policy feedback processes, leaving significant gaps in our understanding.

show abstract

Section: Patterns and Developments In The Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Governing Complexity: Recent Developments in Environmental Politics and Policy

Fahey¹,

Pralle²

2016

Policy Studies Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Interregional instruments such as the Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation involve the transfer of technologies, renewable energy implementation projects or the financing of abatement projects overseas, for which the UK can receive carbon credits. These can currently be used to offset excessive emissions generation in the EU ETS, and have been shown to offer cheaper mitigation opportunities as they have less installed abatement measures (Harris and Symons 2012).…”

Section: Policy Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

National climate policy implications of mitigating embodied energy system emissions

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rapid cuts in greenhouse gas emissions require an almost complete transformation of the energy system to low carbon energy sources. Little consideration has been given to the potential adverse carbon consequences associated with the technology transition. This paper considers the embodied emissions that will occur to replace the UK's fossil fuel-reliant energy supply with low carbon sources. The analysis generates a number of representative scenarios where emissions embodied in energy systems are integrated within current national climate and energy policy objectives. The embodied emissions associated with a new low carbon energy system are lower than the emissions reduction associated with the low carbon energy sources, confirming that there is a carbon return on investment. However, even if the UK reaches its 2050 territorial climate target, it is estimated that by 2050 an additional 200 Mt CO 2 emissions are generated overseas (compared to 128 Mt generated within the UK) in the production of imported fuels and infrastructure components. The cost-optimal model results suggest that more electrification would need to occur, supported by nuclear energy, mainly in replacement of natural gas to mitigate these emissions. However, due to a number of deployment barriers, other policy interventions along the energy supply chain are likely needed, which are discussed alongside the model results. There could be more emphasis on an absolute reduction in energy demand to reduce the scale of change needed in supplying energy; new business models oriented towards performance and not sales; and existing trade schemes and international effort-sharing frameworks could be extended.

show abstract

“…This situation arose due to uncertainties about allocating responsibility. Harris and Symons note that allocating them on the basis of cargo/passenger destination was considered prior to the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol, but lack of adequate data resulted in such proposals being dismissed as impractical. Recent efforts by the European Union (EU) to incorporate international aviation emissions into its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) have been met with resistance from, inter alia , major developing countries, who questioned the proposal's consistency with the cornerstone UNFCCC principle of CBDR.…”

Section: The Case For Cb Accountingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consumption‐based carbon accounting: does it have a future?

Afionis

Sakai

Scott

et al. 2016

WIREs Climate Change

153

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Internationally, allocation of responsibility for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is currently based on the production-based (PB) accounting method, which measures emissions generated in the place where goods and services are produced. However, the growth of emissions embodied in trade has raised the question whether we should switch to, or amalgamate PB accounting, with other accounting approaches. Consumption-based (CB) accounting has so far emerged as the most prominent alternative. This approach accounts for emissions at the point of consumption, attributing all the emissions that occurred in the course of production and distribution to the final consumers of goods and services. This review has a fourfold objective. First, it provides an account of the logic behind attributing responsibility for emissions on the basis of consumption instead of production. Issues of equity and justice, increased emissions coverage, encouragement of cleaner production practices, and political benefits are considered. Second, it discusses the counterarguments, focusing in particular on issues of technical complexity, mitigation effectiveness, and political acceptability. Third, it presents the spectrum of implementation possibilities-ranging from the status quo to more transformative options-and considers the implications for international climate policy that would accrue under various scenarios of adopting CB accounting in practice. Fourth, it looks at how CB accounting may be adjusted to fit with current political realities and it identifies policy mechanisms that could potentially be utilized to directly or indirectly address CB emissions. Such an approach could unlock new opportunities for climate policy innovation and for climate mitigation. © 2016 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. How to cite this article:WIREs Clim Change 2017Change , 8:e438. doi: 10.1002 INTRODUCTIONF or nearly two decades, the international community has been struggling to find a strategy to allocate responsibility for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Equity and justice concerns have been of paramount significance in international negotiations on climate change ever since the adoption of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Underwriting the UNFCCC is the principle of common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR), which acknowledges that countries have contributed by varying scales to the mounting problem of climate change, will be exposed to different levels of impacts, and have different capabilities (e.g., financial and technological) to mitigate emissions. Under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, developed countries agreed to take on legally binding emissions reduction targets for 2012, recognizing their dominant role as historic polluters. However, as emission targets by developed countries alone would evidently be insufficient to address climate change, the 2011 Durban Platform recast equity and differentiation in the climate regime by calling for a roadmap toward an agre...

show abstract

Norm Conflict in Climate Governance: Greenhouse Gas Accounting and the Problem of Consumption

Cited by 31 publications

References 37 publications

Governing Complexity: Recent Developments in Environmental Politics and Policy

Governing Complexity: Recent Developments in Environmental Politics and Policy

National climate policy implications of mitigating embodied energy system emissions

Consumption‐based carbon accounting: does it have a future?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About