Advertisement

International Policy Instrument Prominence in the Climate Change Debate

  • Karen Fisher-Vanden
Chapter

Abstract

The climate change issue has evolved substantially since the 1970s. The focus in the 1970s and the early 1980s was on determining whether human activities had any discernible influence on the global climate. Following the discovery of the ozone hole in 1985 and the hot summer of 1988, the focus shifted toward achieving international cooperation to address the issue. An agreement on international cooperation was reached with the signing of the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992. After the signing of the FCCC, emphasis was placed on reaching international agreement on an environmental goal—specifically, what the emissions target should be, within what timeframe, and how the target could best be achieved.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 2.
    For a discussion of the factors influencing domestic policy instrument choice, see Nathaniel O. Keohane, Richard L. Revesz, and Robert N. Stavins, “The Positive Political Economy of Instrument Choice in Environmental Policy,” in Environmental Economics and Public Policy: Essays in Honor of Wallace E. Oates, edited by Portney and Schwab (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 1997).Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    This section draws heavily from information provided in David Festa, David Hart, and Kevin Diehl, “The Greenhouse Effect in the USA: A Policy History,” (Cambridge, MA: Project on Social Learning in the Management of Global Environmental Risks, Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 1990).Google Scholar
  3. 5.
    Paul de Sa and John Holdren, “A Brief History of Federal Energy R&D in the United States, 1978–1998,” (Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 1997).Google Scholar
  4. 6.
    The Villach statement essentially said that a rise in global mean temperature is expected by the middle of next century. For an elaborate discussion of the events and issues surrounding the 1985 Villach report, see Wendy E. Franz, “The Development of an International Agenda for Climate Change,” ENRP Discussion Paper E-97–07, (Cambridge, MA: Environment and Natural Resources Program, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, June 1997).Google Scholar
  5. 7.
    Shardul Agrawala, “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Past Performance and The Road Ahead,” (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996).Google Scholar
  6. 16.
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 1995-Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change, edited by R. T. Watson, M. C. Zinyowera and R. H. Moss (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995).Google Scholar
  7. 18.
    John W. Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies (New York: Harper Collins, 1995).Google Scholar
  8. 25.
    Sharon Beder “Charging the Earth: The Promotion of Price-Based Measures for Pollution Control,” Ecological Economics, 16 (1996): 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 28.
    See Ibid.; Climate Change 1995—Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change; Alan Manne, “Global 2100: Alternative Scenarios for Reducing Carbon Emissions,” in The Costs of Cutting Carbon Emissions: Results from Global Models, (Paris: OECD, 1993);Google Scholar
  10. J. Martins, J. Burniaux, and G. Nicoletti, “The Costs of Reducing CO2 Emissions: A Comparison of Carbon Tax Curves with GREEN,” in The Costs of Cutting Carbon Emissions: Results from Global Models, (Paris: OECD, 1993);Google Scholar
  11. J. Edmonds, M. Wise, and D. Barns, “Carbon Coalitions: The Cost and Effectiveness of Energy Agreements to Alter Trajectories of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Emissions,” Energy Policy vol. 23, no. 1 (1995): 309–336; andCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. A. Rose and B. Stevens, “Equity Aspects of Marketable Permits for Greenhouse Gases: Global Dimensions of the Coase Theorem,” (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 1994).Google Scholar
  13. 29.
    Thomas Wigley, Richard Richels, and Jae Edmonds, “Economic and Environmental Choices in the Stabilization of Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations,” Nature 379 (6562): 240–243, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 36.
    Robert N. Stavins and Bradley W. Whitehead, “The Next Generation of Market-Based Environmental Policies,” in Environmental Reform: The Next Generation Project, edited by Daniel Esty and Marian Chertow (New Haven, CT: Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, 1996).Google Scholar
  15. 37.
    Irving Mintzer, A Matter of Degrees:The Potential for Controlling the Greenhouse Effect, World Resources Institute Research Report #5, April 1987, (Washington, DC: World Resources Institute).Google Scholar
  16. 38.
    Jeremy Leggett, ed., Global Warming: The Greenpeace Report (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1990).Google Scholar
  17. 40.
    Stephen Seidel, Can We Delay a Greenhouse Warming?: The Effectiveness and Feasibility of Options to Slow a Build-up of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere, (Washington, DC: Strategic Studies Staff, Office of Policy Analysis, Office of Policy Resources Management, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1983).Google Scholar
  18. 41.
    Daniel A. Lashof and Dennis A. Tirpak, eds., Policy Options for Stabilizing Global Climate: Report to Congress (Washington, DC: Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation Analysis, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December 1990).Google Scholar
  19. 42.
    U.S. Department of Energy, State of the Art Reports, (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, 1985).Google Scholar
  20. 43.
    Richard Stewart and Jonathan Wiener, A Comprehensive Approach to Addressing Potential Climate Change, Report of the Task Force on the Comprehensive Approach to Climate Change, (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 1991).Google Scholar
  21. 44.
    Timothy Wirth and John Heinz, Project 88—Harnessing Market Forces to Protect Our Environment: Initiatives for the New President, A Public Policy Study sponsored by Senator Timothy E. Wirth and Senator John Heinz (Washington, DC: December 1988).Google Scholar
  22. 45.
    National Research Council, Energy and Climate (Washington, DC: Studies in Geophysics, National Academy of Sciences, 1977);Google Scholar
  23. National Research Council, Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment (Washington, DC: Climate Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, 1979);Google Scholar
  24. National Research Council, Changing Climate, Report of the Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1983).Google Scholar
  25. 46.
    National Research Council, Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1991).Google Scholar
  26. 47.
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change: The IPCC Response Strategies, World Meteorological Organization / United Nations Environment Program, (Washington, DC: Island Press, 1990); Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995—Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change. Google Scholar
  27. 49.
    Charles E. Lindblom, “The Science of Muddling Through,” Public Administration Review 14 (Spring 1959): 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 51.
    See R. Schmalensee, P. L. Joskow, A. D. Ellerman, J. P. Montero, and E. M. Baily, “An Interim Evaluation of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Trading,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 12, no. 3: 53–68, 1998;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Robert N. Stavins, “What Can We Learn from the Grand Policy Experiment? Lessons from SO2 Allowance Trading,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 12, no. 3: 69–88, 1998; and D. R. Bohi and D. Burtraw, “SO2 Allowance Trading: How Do Expectations and Experience Measure Up?” Electricity Journal, August/September: 67–75, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 52.
    Edward A. Parson and Karen Fisher-Vanden, “Joint Implementation and Its Alternatives: Choosing Systems to Distribute Global Emissions Abatement and Finance,” (Cambridge, MA: Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 1997).Google Scholar
  31. 53.
    R. Schmalensee, “Greenhouse Policy Architectures and Institutions,” MIT-CEEPR 96–008 Working Paper. (Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1996).Google Scholar
  32. 54.
    Raymond Vernon, “The Triad As Policymakers,” in Shaping National Responses to Climate Change, edited by Henry Lee (Washington, DC: Island Press, 1995); Stavins, “What Can We Learn from the Grand Policy Experiment?” 69–88.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Paul G. Harris 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karen Fisher-Vanden

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations