Journal of Transatlantic Studies

, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 209–226 | Cite as

The Prospects for a Transatlantic Climate Policy

  • Dennis Tänzler
  • Alexander Carius


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    See for example Elizabeth Pond 2004: Friendly Fire. The Near-Death of the Transatlantic Alliance. Pittsburgh, Washington, D.C.: European Union Studies Association and Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    There are also contrasting positions on foreign policy issues as the Nuclear Test Treaty, the Land Mines Treaty or the International Criminal Court.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    See on the UNFCCC, Daniel Bodansky 1993: The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: A Commentary. In: Yale Journal of International Law, 18, 451–558.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    See for a detailed analysis of the flexible mechanisms, Sebastian Oberthür and Hermann E. Ott 1999: The Kyoto Protocol. Intemational Climate Policy for the 21st Century. Berlin: Springer, 151–205.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    See Douglas Jehl with Andrew C. Revkin: Bush reverses vow to curb gas tied to global warming, New York Times March 14, 2001.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    See for an analysis of the factors influencing Canadian Climate Change policies, Steven Bernstein and Christopher Gore 2001: Policy Implications of the Kyoto Protocol for Canada. In: ISUMA — Canadian Journal of Policy Research, Vol. 2 No. 4, 26–36.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Own calculations based on the GHG database; available at <>.
  8. 8.
    European Environment Agency 2003: Greenhouse gas emission trends and projections in Europe 2003. Tracking progress by the EU and acceding and candidate countries towards achieving their Kyoto Protocol targets. Environmental Issue Report No. 36. Copenhagen: EEA.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    See Oberthür/Ott 1999 (FN 4), 13.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    The survey was part of the INTACT (International Network to Advance Climate Talks) Project of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs. A summary is available at
  11. 11.
    Joyeeta Gupta and Michael Grubb (eds.) 2000: Climate Change and European Leadership: A Sustainable Role for Europe? Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  12. 11a.
    Hermann E. Ott and Sebastian Oberthür 2002: Breaking the Impasse: Forging an EU Leadership Initiative on Climate Change. In: Matthias Buck, Alexander Carius and Kelly Kollman (eds.) International Environmental Policymaking. Transatlantic Cooperation and the World Summit on Sustainable Development. München: Ökom Verlag, 285–314.Google Scholar
  13. 12.
    See Lasse Ringius 1999: Differentiation, Leaders, and Fairness: Negotiating Climate Commitments in the European Community, International Negotiation Vol. 4, No. 2, 133–166.; Oberthür/Ott 1999 (FN 4), ch. 12.Google Scholar
  14. 13.
    See European Union 2002: Council Decision 2002/358/CE of 25 April 2002 concerning the approval, on behalf of the European Community, of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the joint fulfilment of commitments thereunder, in: Official Journal of the European Communities, L 130/1. See also for an analysis, Christoph Bail/Simon Marr/Sebastian Oberthür, 2003; Klimaschutz im Recht. In: Hans-Werner Rengeling (ed.), Handbuch zum europäischen und deutschen Umweltrecht, Vol. 1, Cologne.Google Scholar
  15. 14.
    See for an overview on European Climate Change policies and programmes, Sebastian Oberthür and Dennis Tänzler 2003: The Influence of International Regimes on Policy Diffusion: The Development of Climate Policies in the European Union. Paper presented at the 44th Annual ISA Convention Portland, Oregon “The Construction and Cumulation of Knowledge” Feb. 25–March 1, 2003.Google Scholar
  16. 15.
    European Commission 2000: Communication from the Commission on EU policies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: Towards a European Climate Change Programme (ECCP) (COM (2000)88). BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  17. 15a.
    European Commission 2001a: Communication from the Commission on the implementation of the first phase of the European Climate Change Programme (ECCP) (COM(2001) 580 final). Brussels.Google Scholar
  18. 16.
    Cf. Oberthür/Tänzler 2003 (FN 14), 12–14; Anthony Zito 2002: Integrating the Environment into the European Union: The History of the Controversial Carbon Tax. In: Andrew Jordan (ed.): Environmental Policy in the European Union. Actors, Institutions & Processes. Sterling (VA): Earthscan, 241–255.Google Scholar
  19. 17.
    European Commission 2001: Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for greenhouse gas emissions trading within the European Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC. COM (2001) 581. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  20. 17a.
    European Council 2003: Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/ 61/EC. Official Journal of the European Union L 275/32 of 25.10.2003.Google Scholar
  21. 18.
    European Union 2001: Directive 2001/77/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market. In: Official Journal of the European Communities L 283, 33–40Google Scholar
  22. 18a.
    European Commission 1998: Implementing the Community Strategy to Reduce CO2 from Cars: An Environmental Agreement with the European Automobile Industry COM(1998) 495 final, Brussels.Google Scholar
  23. 19.
    According to the new data for 2001, the greenhouse gas emissions of France increased, so only four countries are currently on track to meet the Kyoto targets, cf. EEA 2003 (FN 8).Google Scholar
  24. 20.
    For a detailed analysis of the US climate change debate see Paul G. Harris 1998: Understanding America’s Climate Change Policy: Realpolitik, Pluralism, and Ethical Norms. Oxford: Oxford Centre for the Environment, Ethic & SocietyGoogle Scholar
  25. 20a.
    Dennis Tänzler 2002: Klimawandel: Divergierende Perzeptionsbedingungen als Ursache gescheiterter Klimaverhandlungen, in: Christopher Daase, Susanne Feske, and Ingo Peters (eds.): Internationale Risikopolitik. Der Umgang mit neuen Gefahren in den internationalen Beziehungen, Baden-Baden, 87–112.Google Scholar
  26. 21.
    See US Senate 1997: Senate Resolution 98, 105th Congress, 1st session (Report No. 105–54). Available at < sr98ats.txt.pdf>
  27. 22.
    Cf. Stuart Eizenstat 1998: Stick with Kyoto: A sound start on Global warming. In: Foreign Affairs, Vol. 77, No.3, 119–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 23.
    Putin formally approved the Kyoto treaty at the end of September 2004 and asked the Russian parliament to back ratification. Therefore ratification is expected for the end of 2004 or in early 2005. See ‘Environment Daily’, Russia to ratify Kyoto Protocol, 30 September 2004.Google Scholar
  29. 24.
    Cf. Hermann E. Ott 2003: Warning Signs from Delhi. Troubled Waters Ahead for Global Climate Policy, Wuppertal.Google Scholar
  30. 25.
    The White House Office of the Press Secretary 2001: President Bush Discusses Global Climate Change, Washington, D.C. 11. June 2001.Google Scholar
  31. 26.
    US National Energy Policy Development Group 2001: National Energy Policy. Reliable, Affordable, and Environmentally Sound Energy for America Future, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  32. 27.
    The climate change strategy of the US Administration as well as information on further initiatives are available at the State Department’s homepage at <<.
  33. 28.
    See for example RIVM National Institute for Public Health 2002: Evaluating the Bush Climate Change Initiative, Bilthoven (The Netherlands)Google Scholar
  34. 28a.
    Laurent Viguier 2002: The U.S. Climate Change Policy: a Preliminary Evaluation. The French Center on the United States (CFE) Policy Brief No. 1, Pads.Google Scholar
  35. 29.
    See for an analysis William A. Pizer and Raymond J. Kopp 2003: Summary and Analysis of McCain-Lieberman—“Climate Stewardship Act of 2003” S. 139, introduced 01/09/03. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  36. 30.
    Cf. Kristine Kern 2000: Die Diffusion von Politikinnovationen. Umweltpolitische Innovationen im Mehrebenensystem der USA, OpladenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 30a.
    US EPA Science Advisory Board 2000: Commentary resulting from a workshop on the diffusion and adoption of innovations in environmental protection. EPA-SAB-EEC-COM-01-001. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  38. 31.
    See for example the reports of Barry G. Rabe 2002: Greenhouse & statehouse. The Evolving State Government Role in Climate Change. Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  39. 31a.
    Center for Clean Air Policy 2002: State and Local Climate Change Policy Actions, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  40. 32.
    State Attorney’s General 2002: Re: Climate Change, A Communication From the Chief Legal Officers of eleven States to George W. Bush, available at [2 February 2003].Google Scholar
  41. 33.
    See Julia Preston and Andrew C. Revkin: City Joins Suit Against 5 Power Companies. In: New York Times, 22.07.2004.Google Scholar
  42. 34.
    NEG/ECP 2001: Climate Change Action Plan. Available at <>.Google Scholar
  43. 35.
    See U.S. Public Interest Research Group 2003: Generating Solutions: How Clean, Renewable Energy is Boosting Local Economies and Saving Consumers Money, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  44. 36.
    See B.G. Rabe (FN 31), 12–15.Google Scholar
  45. 37.
    For further information on this project see, see also Andrew C. Revkin: U.S. Is Pressuring Industries to Cut Greenhouse Gases, New York Times, 20.1.2003.
  46. 38.
    See Julian E. Salt 1998: Kyoto and the Insurance Industry: An Insider’s Perspective. In: Environmental Politics, Vol. 7, No. 2, 160–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 39.
    See Thomas Gehring and Matthias Buck 2002: International and Transatlantic Environmental Governance. In: Matthias Buck, Alexander Carius and Kelly Kollman (eds.) International Environmental Policymaking. Transatlantic Cooperation and the World Summit on Sustainable Development. München: Okom Verlag, 21–43.Google Scholar
  48. 40.
    For a history of the Transatlantic Legislator’s Dialogue see
  49. 41.
    See Environment Daily 2003: “G8 nations agree cooperation on green issues”, 04/06/2003.Google Scholar
  50. 42.
    Both projects are funded by the German Marshall Fund of the United States.Google Scholar
  51. 43.
    Martin Jänicke 2000: Ecological Modernization: Innovation and Diffusion of Policy and Technology. FFU Report 00-08. Berlin, p. 2.Google Scholar
  52. 44.
    See for the relevance of these elements of ecological modernisation theory Tony Jackson and John Curry 20004: Ecological modernisation on both sides of the Atlantic: strategic environmental assessment in British Columbia and Scotland. Paper presented at the Transatlantic Studies Conference, Dundee, Scotland, 12–15 July, 2004, p. 3.Google Scholar
  53. 45.
    See for example, Andrew Aulisi, Daniel J. Dudek, Joseph Goffman, Michael Oppenheimer Annie Petsortk, and Sarah Wade 2000: From Obstacle to Opportunity: How acid rain emissions trading is delivering cleaner air. New York: Environmental Defense.Google Scholar
  54. 46.
    See Michael Grubb, Christiaan Vrolijk and Duncan Brack 1999: The Kyoto Protocol. A Guide and Assessment. London: The Royal Institute of International Affairs. Earthscan, 128–131.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Board of the Journal of Transatlantic Studies 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dennis Tänzler
    • 1
  • Alexander Carius
    • 1
  1. 1.UAdelphi ResearchBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations