Sub- and non-state climate action: a framework to assess progress, implementation and impact

Hale, Thomas; Chan, Sander; Hsu, Angel; Clapper, Andrew; Elliott, Cynthia; Faria, Pedro; Kuramochi, Takeshi; McDaniel, Shannon; Morgado, Milimer; Roelfsema, Mark; Santaella, Mayra; Singh, Neelam; Tout, Ian; Weber, Christopher L.; Weinfurter, Amy; Widerberg, Oscar

doi:10.1080/14693062.2020.1828796

Cited by 79 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It holds annual meetings of 197 contracting parties who participate in the Conference of the Parties (COP), and these focus on facilitating the formal negotiations that lead to and operationalize agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol and more recently the Paris Agreement. In addition to parties, non-state actors (NSA) also attend the COPs as "observers", and their influence in climate action has been steadily increasing over the years [1]. This influence was encouraged when NSAs' involvement was formally operationalized within the text of the Paris Agreement [2].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Attitudes on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) as a Mitigation Technology within the UNFCCC

Fridahl

Dixon

2021

Energies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a technology for mitigating emissions from large point-source industries. In addition to the primary role of reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, CCS forms the basis for two large-scale negative emissions technologies by coupling geologic CO2 storage with bioenergy (BECCS) and direct air carbon capture (DACCS). Despite its inclusion within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), CCS has been largely unsupported by UNFCCC delegates because of its association with fossil fuels. We evaluate data from surveys given since 2015 to UNFCCC delegates at the Conference of the Parties (COPs) to ascertain how attitudes about bioenergy, BECCS, and CCS may be changing within the UNFCCC. The results show a positive change in attitudes over time for both fossil CCS and BECCS. Using a unique data analysis method, we ascertain that, in some instances, popularity of BECCS increased due to an increased acceptance of CCS despite lower opinions of bioenergy. Business and research NGOs have the most positive views of CCS, and environmental NGOs the most negative views. Delegates that attend CCS side-events have more positive attitudes towards CCS than non-attendees. Developing countries have a larger need and a greater appetite for information on BECCS than developed countries, but a need for information exists in both.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They attend these COPs for many different reasons, such as providing information, influencing states, representing excluded groups, and acting as watchdogs. Thus, this sector of COP attendees represents an important component of influence on the implementation of climate policy within the UNFCCC [1,[9][10][11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attitudes on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) as a Mitigation Technology within the UNFCCC

Fridahl

Dixon

2021

Energies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The increasingly widespread engagement of subnational and non-state actors in climate governance (referred to in this article as "climate action" or "non-state climate action") has been examined through various lenses, including transnationalism (Andonova et al, 2009;Bulkeley et al, 2014;Pattberg & Stripple, 2008), hybrid multilateralism (Bäckstrand et al, 2017), polycentrism (Dorsch & Flachsland, 2017;Jordan et al, 2018;Spreng et al, 2016), and private authority (Green, 2014;Zelli et al, 2017). Across these different lenses, scholarship of non-state climate action has largely focused on functional issues, such as participation (Hsueh, 2017;Roger et al, 2015); orchestration (Chan et al, 2018;Hickmann & Elsässer, 2020); effectiveness and impact (Hale et al, 2021;Kuramochi et al, 2020;van der Ven et al, 2016) and its relationship to national and international policymaking (Andonova et al, 2017;Chan et al, 2016). The role of ideology in climate action, however, has received little attention.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ideology and non-state climate action: partnering and design of REDD+ projects

Abraham

2021

Int Environ Agreements

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholars and policymakers working on non-state climate action have tended to focus on functional considerations, largely neglecting questions of ideology. This article brings them into the spotlight by investigating how ideology affects climate action initiatives. Based on a new database of 389 projects associated with reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, the article examines how ideology affects project design and partnering. A quantitative analysis and four case studies of projects in Colombia and Peru show how environmental ideology shapes the preferences of project developers for project designs and partners. Two mechanisms that underlie this are also derived. The findings show how a focus on ideology can help open the black box of climate action initiatives and explain their substantive variation. They also offer insights into the ideological implications of the transnationalization of climate governance. Non-state climate action at once entrenches the neoliberal ideological status quo of climate politics and offers critical ideologies a foothold. This poses risks for the future effectiveness and legitimacy of non-state climate action and should be considered in the design of the emerging institutional architecture that supports it. This article also sets a platform for and outlines the contours of a future research agenda on ideology in climate action.

show abstract

“…Part of the difficulty of tracking and analyzing impacts beyond mitigation is due to the diversity of actions, many of which cannot easily be quantified and compared across large samples. Nonetheless, researchers have developed methods for tracking non‐mitigation impacts, creating proxies in the absence of data on societal and environmental impacts (Chan et al, 2018b, 2019; Dzebo, 2019; Hale et al, 2020). The MPGCA has reported proximate indicators of impacts beyond mitigation for a limited set of cooperative initiatives in recent editions of the Yearbook of Global Climate Action (UNFCCC, 2017, 2018, 2019b).…”

Section: An Evaluative Gcaa?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate Ambition and Sustainable Development for a New Decade: A Catalytic Framework

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the Global Climate Action Agenda (GCAA) and discusses options to improve sub‐ and non‐state involvement in post‐2020 climate governance. A framework that stimulates sub‐ and non‐state action is a necessary complement to national governmental action, as the latter falls short of achieving low‐carbon and climate‐resilient development as envisaged in the Paris Agreement. Applying design principles for an ideal‐type orchestration framework, we review literature and gather expert judgements to assess whether the GCAA has been collaborative, comprehensive, evaluative and catalytic. Results show that there has been greater coordination among orchestrators, for instance in the organization of events. However, mobilization efforts remain event‐driven and too little effort is invested in understanding the progress of sub‐ and non‐state action. Data collection has improved, although more sophisticated indicators are needed to evaluate climate and sustainable development impacts. Finally, the GCAA has recorded more action, but relatively little by actors in developing countries. As the world seeks to recover from the COVID‐19 crisis and enters a new decade of climate action, the GCAA could make a vital contribution in challenging times by helping governments keep and enhance climate commitments; strengthening capacity for sub‐ and non‐state action; enabling accountability; and realizing sustainable development.

show abstract

Sub- and non-state climate action: a framework to assess progress, implementation and impact

Cited by 79 publications

References 40 publications

Attitudes on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) as a Mitigation Technology within the UNFCCC

Attitudes on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) as a Mitigation Technology within the UNFCCC

Ideology and non-state climate action: partnering and design of REDD+ projects

Climate Ambition and Sustainable Development for a New Decade: A Catalytic Framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About