Climate policies for road transport revisited (II): Closing the policy gap with cap-and-trade

Current policies in the road transport sector fail to deliver consistent and efficient incentives for greenhouse gas abatement (see companion article by Creutzig et al., 2010a). Market-based instruments such as cap-and-trade systems close this policy gap and are complementary to traditional policies which are required where specific market failures arise. Even in presence of strong existing non-market policies, cap-and-trade delivers additional abatement and efficiency by incentivizing demand side abatement options. This paper analyzes generic design options and economic impacts of including the European road transport sector to the EU ETS. The point of regulation in a road transport cap-and-trade system should be upstream in the fuel chain to ensure effectiveness (cover all life-cycle emissions and avoid double-counting), efficiency (incentivize all abatement options) and low transaction costs. Based on year 2020 marginal abatement cost curves from different models and current EU climate policy objectives we show that in contrast to conventional wisdom road transport inclusion would not change the EU ETS allowance price. This puts concerns over industrial carbon leakage as a consequence of adding road transport to the EU ETS into perspective.Climate Policy, Road Transport, Cap-and-trade

Starting low, reaching high? : Sequencing in EU climate and energy policies

In order to achieve the UNFCCC Paris Agreement goals, climate policies worldwide require considerable ratcheting-up. Policy sequencing provides a framework for analysing policy process dynamics that facilitate ratcheting-up. We apply a sequencing perspective to two key EU climate and energy policies, the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and the Renewable Energy Directive (RED), to comparatively test the empirical relevance of sequencing for single policies - in addition to sequencing across policies, which has been the focus of sequencing theory so far - and to uncover specific mechanisms. Our results confirm that sequencing, based on triggering positive and controlling negative feedback, is relevant both within and across policies. Policy choices that may facilitate ratcheting-up include tools to control costs, the possibility to centralise and harmonise in a multi-level governance context, options for compensation of reluctant actors, and the encouragement of learning processes

CITIES: Car Industry, Road Transport and an International Emission Trading Scheme – Policy Options

This report evaluates existing regulations for climate change mitigation in the transport sector and investigates the effects of including transportation in emission trading schemes.

Nachtrag: Deutschlands Beitrag zur Lösung des Weltklimaproblems – Was lässt sich erreichen?

Ergänzend zu den Beiträgen, die im ifo Schnelldienst Nr. 7/2007 zum Klimawandel veröffentlicht wurden, legen Ottmar Edenhofer, Christian Flachsland und Thomas Bruckner, Potsdam-Institut für Klimafolgenforschung, dar, welchen Beitrag Deutschland zur Lösung des Weltklimaproblems ihrer Meinung nach leisten sollte. Für sie haben Europa und Deutschland die Möglichkeit, den entscheidenden Impuls zur Schaffung einer langfristig klimaverträglichen und gleichzeitig kostengünstigen Energieversorgung zu geben.Klimaschutz, Klimapolitik, Umweltschutzkosten, Deutschland, Europa

What is important for achieving 2 °C? UNFCCC and IPCC expert perceptions on obstacles and response options for climate change mitigation

Global mitigation efforts remain insufficient to limit the global temperature increase to well below 2 °C. While a growing academic literature analyzes this problem, perceptions of which obstacles inhibit goal attainment and which responses might be most effective seem to differ widely. This makes prioritization and agreement on the way forward difficult. To inform prioritization in global climate policy and research agendas, we present quantitative data on how 917 experts from the IPCC and the UNFCCC perceive the importance of different obstacles and response options for achieving 2 °C. On average, respondents consider opposition from special interest groups the most important obstacle and technological R&D the most important response. Our survey also finds that the majority of experts perceives a wide range of issues as important, supporting an agenda that is inclusive in terms of coverage. Average importance ratings differ between experts from the Global North and South, suggesting that balanced representation in global fora and regionally differentiated agendas are important. In particular, opposition from special interest groups is a top priority among experts from North America, Europe and Oceania. Investigating the drivers of individual importance ratings, we find little difference between experts from the IPCC and the UNFCCC, while expert's perceptions correlate with their academic training and their national scientific, regulatory, and financial contexts

Five myths about an EU ETS carbon price floor. CEPS Policy Insights No 2018/17, December 2018

This policy insight builds on the workshop EU ETS Reform: Taking Stock and Examining Carbon Price Floor Options, held at the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) in Brussels on July 3, 2018. The workshop was cosponsored by CEPS and the AHEAD and Mistra Carbon Exit projects. While the paper draws on insights from workshop discussions, its views are solely those of the authors. It outlines different perspectives on the past performance of the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) in terms of its allowance price (Section 1), analyses how the recent reform responded to related challenges (Section 2), and considers the case for introducing a carbon price floor in the EU ETS (Section 3). The main part of the paper (Section 4) identifies five myths in the debate about an EU ETS price floor and critically challenges them. Section 5 concludes by discussing potential entry points for introducing a carbon price floor in the context of the upcoming EU climate policy process

What is important for achieving 2 °C? UNFCCC and IPCC expert perceptions on obstacles and response options for climate change mitigation

Global mitigation efforts remain insufficient to limit the global temperature increase to well below 2 °C. While a growing academic literature analyzes this problem, perceptions of which obstacles inhibit goal attainment and which responses might be most effective seem to differ widely. This makes prioritization and agreement on the way forward difficult. To inform prioritization in global climate policy and research agendas, we present quantitative data on how 917 experts from the IPCC and the UNFCCC perceive the importance of different obstacles and response options for achieving 2 °C. On average, respondents consider opposition from special interest groups the most important obstacle and technological R&D the most important response. Our survey also finds that the majority of experts perceives a wide range of issues as important, supporting an agenda that is inclusive in terms of coverage. Average importance ratings differ between experts from the Global North and South, suggesting that balanced representation in global fora and regionally differentiated agendas are important. In particular, opposition from special interest groups is a top priority among experts from North America, Europe and Oceania. Investigating the drivers of individual importance ratings, we find little difference between experts from the IPCC and the UNFCCC, while expert’s perceptions correlate with their academic training and their national scientific, regulatory, and financial contexts

Klimaschutz und Verkehr: Zielerreichung nur mit unbequemen Maßnahmen möglich. Ariadne-Analyse.

n der Ariadne-Analyse befassen sich die Autoren mit Maßnahmen, die klimaschützendes Verhalten belohnen (z.B. durch Ausbau der Infrastruktur des Nahverkehrs) und klimaschädigendes Verhalten einschränken (z.B. Flugverkehrssteuer). Die Forschenden betrachten dabei einerseits die jeweiligen Effekte auf die Minderungen von Treibhausgasemissionen und andererseits die Einstellung der Bevölkerung zu den Maßnahmen. Sie stellen fest, dass die Maßnahmen, die den Individualverkehr einschränken, das höchste CO2-Einsparpotential haben, wie beispielsweise die Erhöhung der Benzinpreise und die Einführung einer Maut. In der Bevölkerung stehen dagegen der Ausbau des Nah- und Radverkehrs an erster Stellen, um verkehrsbedingte Emissionen zu senken. Maßnahmen, die eine höhere individuelle finanzielle Belastung bei der Nutzung von Verkehrsmitteln zur Folge hat, werden dagegen oft mehrheitlich abgelehnt. Die Forschenden geben auch einen ersten Ausblick, wie die Diskrepanz zwischen effektiven Maßnahmen und ihrer Akzeptanz in der Bevölkerung aufgehoben werden kann. Sie diskutieren zum Beispiel das Thema Rückerstattung und eine zielgruppengerechte Kommunikation zwischen Politik und Gesellschaft