From adaptation to climate-resilient development: What are the implications for policymakers?

Jared J. Finnegan gives an overview of The economics of climate-resilient development, a new book edited by Sam Fankhauser and Thomas K.J. McDermott, which he also contributed to. The book explores the link between adaptation to climate change and economic development. The authors hope this new edited volume can help inform adaptation policymaking and contribute to the widening literature on climate-resilient development

Institutions, Climate Change, and the Foundations of Long-Term Policymaking

Many policy problems require taking costly action today for future benefits. Examining the case of climate change, this paper examines how two institutions—electoral rules and interest group intermediation—structure the distributional politics of climate change and as a result, drive variation in climate “policy investments” across the high-income democracies. Proportional electoral rules increase electoral safety, allowing politicians to impose short-term costs on voters. Concertation between industry and the state enables governments to compensate losers, defusing organized opposition to policy change. Moreover, the joint presence of both institutions generates complementarities that reinforce their independent effects, pushing countries onto different climate politics trajectories. Newly available data on climate policy stringency provide empirical support for the arguments. Countries with PR and interest group concertation have the highest levels of policy stringency and distribute higher costs toward consumers. The analysis points to causal mechanisms that should structure policy responses to a more general set of long-term challenges

Low carbon for the long term: essays on the comparative political economy of climate change policy

Long-term policy challenges – biodiversity loss, education and skills, infrastructure, and public debt – are everywhere, yet scholars are just beginning to examine their distinct political economy. In the context of these types of issues, politics is not only about who gets what, but who gets what and when. Climate change is the quintessential long-term policy problem. Why have some advanced capitalist democracies been more successful than others at addressing long-term problems like climate change? Surprisingly, political science has provided few answers to this substantively important question. This thesis tackles this question by focusing on the distributional politics of climate policy investment. It provides new arguments for how institutions and electoral incentives generate opportunities for governments to arrive at successful distributive bargains that impose short-term costs on social actors today for benefits that arrive in the future. Across countries, I show how electoral rules and interest group intermediation systematically structure the conditions needed for politicians to make long-term climate policy investments. Indeed, the complementarity between these institutions generate varieties of decarbonization, which push countries onto diverging policy trajectories. Building on these arguments, I look within countries over time and provide the first theoretical arguments and empirical evidence that links electoral competition to fossil fuel taxation. By influencing political risk, competition structures political incentives for imposing short-term costs on voters today for long-term benefits. It is only governments with a comfortable lead over rivals that can think past the next election to society’s long-run aggregate welfare. I find support for my arguments using new cross-national data on shadow carbon prices, original datasets of historical gasoline taxation across high-income democracies and US states, and a case study of fossil fuel tax policy decisions by the German Social Democratic-Green coalition government. Beyond shedding light on the politics of long-term policymaking in the case of climate change, the thesis points to crucial mechanisms that plausibly account for the differential ability of governments to tackle a wider range of long-term challenges

The impact of strategic climate legislation: evidence from expert interviews on the UK Climate Change Act

This paper assesses the importance of a strategic legal framework for action against climate change, using the UK Climate Change Act as an example. Passed in 2008, the Climate Change Act is one of the earliest and most prominent examples of framework legislation on climate change. It contains several innovative features that have since been replicated in other framework laws. We use stakeholder interviews to assess the strengths of the Act and whether it has succeeded in creating an integrated, informed and forward-looking policy process. Respondents felt that the Act had established a firm long-term framework with a clear direction of travel. However, they differed on whether the Act provided sufficient policy certainty and protection against political backsliding. Most respondents felt that the Act had changed the institutional context and the processes through which climate change is addressed. As a result, interviewees believe that the Act has helped UK climate policy to become better informed, more forward looking and better guided by statutory routines

Why nations lead or lag in energy transitions

Policy-driven change hinges on institutions that support insulation or compensationaRussia’s invasion of Ukraine has disrupted energy markets, producing price spikes reminiscent of the 1970s. Many suggest that the crisis may accelerate transitions away from fossil fuels and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Yet, governments have responded very differently to the price shock. Though some are prioritizing clean energy, others are doubling down on fossil fuel production. Why do countries respond so differently to the same problem? Access to domestic fossil fuel resources is only part of the story. Countries also vary in the political sources that enable transformational change in energy and climate policy (1, 2). We draw on two historical episodes illustrating variation in energy transitions across countries—the 1970s oil shocks, and policies to address climate change—to offer important lessons on the political opportunities and constraints for policy-makers across different countries to accelerate the transition to clean energy

The comparative institutional analysis of energy transitions

The discussion on ‘The comparative institutional analysis of energy transitions’ gives us a state-of-the-art overview of the main theoretical and conceptual developments within the field of political economy. It invites us to broaden our knowledge on the changing realities of different geographical regions in energy transition. In this discussion forum, Finnegan discusses emerging themes in the comparative political economy literature of climate change. He identifies gaps and offers an outline for further research. Allen, Allen, Cumming and Johan take a closer look at the links between different types of capitalism and the natural environment. The authors stress the importance of adopting an institutional perspective to explain differences in environmental outcomes. Wood compares the transitions of energy usage and mixes between liberal and coordinated market economies from a historical perspective. He looks for parallels between the energy transition from coal to oil and gas to the current renewables. Nicklich and Endo answer the question ‘Do globalization and globally perceived occurrences of environmental problems lead to a convergence of energy supply?’. They compare the fields of German and Japanese wind power with a particular focus on Greenpeace after the Fukushima disaster in 2011. Finally, Lim and Tanaka focus on the question ‘When do energy transition policies enjoy broad-based acceptance?’. They conclude that the public acceptance of energy transition varies between Western and non-Western societies

Behavioral responses of terrestrial mammals to COVID-19 lockdowns

DATA AND MATERIALS AVAILABILITY : The full dataset used in the final analyses (33) and associated code (34) are available at Dryad. A subset of the spatial coordinate datasets is available at Zenodo (35). Certain datasets of spatial coordinates will be available only through requests made to the authors due to conservation and Indigenous sovereignty concerns (see table S1 for more information on data use restrictions and contact information for data requests). These sensitive data will be made available upon request to qualified researchers for research purposes, provided that the data use will not threaten the study populations, such as by distribution or publication of the coordinates or detailed maps. Some datasets, such as those overseen by government agencies, have additional legal restrictions on data sharing, and researchers may need to formally apply for data access. Collaborations with data holders are generally encouraged, and in cases where data are held by Indigenous groups or institutions from regions that are under-represented in the global science community, collaboration may be required to ensure inclusion.COVID-19 lockdowns in early 2020 reduced human mobility, providing an opportunity to disentangle its effects on animals from those of landscape modifications. Using GPS data, we compared movements and road avoidance of 2300 terrestrial mammals (43 species) during the lockdowns to the same period in 2019. Individual responses were variable with no change in average movements or road avoidance behavior, likely due to variable lockdown conditions. However, under strict lockdowns 10-day 95th percentile displacements increased by 73%, suggesting increased landscape permeability. Animals’ 1-hour 95th percentile displacements declined by 12% and animals were 36% closer to roads in areas of high human footprint, indicating reduced avoidance during lockdowns. Overall, lockdowns rapidly altered some spatial behaviors, highlighting variable but substantial impacts of human mobility on wildlife worldwide.The Radboud Excellence Initiative, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, the National Science Foundation, Serbian Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, Dutch Research Council NWO program “Advanced Instrumentation for Wildlife Protection”, Fondation Segré, RZSS, IPE, Greensboro Science Center, Houston Zoo, Jacksonville Zoo and Gardens, Nashville Zoo, Naples Zoo, Reid Park Zoo, Miller Park, WWF, ZCOG, Zoo Miami, Zoo Miami Foundation, Beauval Nature, Greenville Zoo, Riverbanks zoo and garden, SAC Zoo, La Passarelle Conservation, Parc Animalier d’Auvergne, Disney Conservation Fund, Fresno Chaffee zoo, Play for nature, North Florida Wildlife Center, Abilene Zoo, a Liber Ero Fellowship, the Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program, Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation, Teck Coal, and the Grand Teton Association. The collection of Norwegian moose data was funded by the Norwegian Environment Agency, the German Ministry of Education and Research via the SPACES II project ORYCS, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, Bureau of Land Management, Muley Fanatic Foundation (including Southwest, Kemmerer, Upper Green, and Blue Ridge Chapters), Boone and Crockett Club, Wyoming Wildlife and Natural Resources Trust, Knobloch Family Foundation, Wyoming Animal Damage Management Board, Wyoming Governor’s Big Game License Coalition, Bowhunters of Wyoming, Wyoming Outfitters and Guides Association, Pope and Young Club, US Forest Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Wyoming Wild Sheep Foundation, Wild Sheep Foundation, Wyoming Wildlife/Livestock Disease Research Partnership, the US National Science Foundation [IOS-1656642 and IOS-1656527, the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness, and by a GRUPIN research grant from the Regional Government of Asturias, Sigrid Rausing Trust, Batubay Özkan, Barbara Watkins, NSERC Discovery Grant, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration act under Pittman-Robertson project, the State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport of the Czech Republic, the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic, Rufford Foundation, an American Society of Mammalogists African Graduate Student Research Fund, the German Science Foundation, the Israeli Science Foundation, the BSF-NSF, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food and Slovenian Research Agency (CRP V1-1626), the Aage V. Jensen Naturfond (project: Kronvildt - viden, værdier og værktøjer), the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy, National Centre for Research and Development in Poland, the Slovenian Research Agency, the David Shepherd Wildlife Foundation, Disney Conservation Fund, Whitley Fund for Nature, Acton Family Giving, Zoo Basel, Columbus, Bioparc de Doué-la-Fontaine, Zoo Dresden, Zoo Idaho, Kolmården Zoo, Korkeasaari Zoo, La Passarelle, Zoo New England, Tierpark Berlin, Tulsa Zoo, the Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Government of Mongolia, the Mongolian Academy of Sciences, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration act and the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, the National Science Foundation, Parks Canada, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Alberta Environment and Parks, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Safari Club International and Alberta Conservation Association, the Consejo Nacional de Ciencias y Tecnología (CONACYT) of Paraguay, the Norwegian Environment Agency and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, EU funded Interreg SI-HR 410 Carnivora Dinarica project, Paklenica and Plitvice Lakes National Parks, UK Wolf Conservation Trust, EURONATUR and Bernd Thies Foundation, the Messerli Foundation in Switzerland and WWF Germany, the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, NASA Ecological Forecasting Program, the Ecotone Telemetry company, the French National Research Agency, LANDTHIRST, grant REPOS awarded by the i-Site MUSE thanks to the “Investissements d’avenir” program, the ANR Mov-It project, the USDA Hatch Act Formula Funding, the Fondation Segre and North American and European Zoos listed at http://www.giantanteater.org/, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, the Yellowstone Forever and the National Park Service, Missouri Department of Conservation, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Grant, and State University of New York, various donors to the Botswana Predator Conservation Program, data from collared caribou in the Northwest Territories were made available through funds from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories. The European Research Council Horizon2020, the British Ecological Society, the Paul Jones Family Trust, and the Lord Kelvin Adam Smith fund, the Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute and Tanzania National Parks. The Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapahoe Fish and Game Department and the Wyoming State Veterinary Laboratory, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Kodiak Brown Bear Trust, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Koniag Native Corporation, Old Harbor Native Corporation, Afognak Native Corporation, Ouzinkie Native Corporation, Natives of Kodiak Native Corporation and the State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, and the Slovenia Hunters Association and Slovenia Forest Service. F.C. was partly supported by the Resident Visiting Researcher Fellowship, IMéRA/Aix-Marseille Université, Marseille. This work was partially funded by the Center of Advanced Systems Understanding (CASUS), which is financed by Germany’s Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and by the Saxon Ministry for Science, Culture and Tourism (SMWK) with tax funds on the basis of the budget approved by the Saxon State Parliament. This article is a contribution of the COVID-19 Bio-Logging Initiative, which is funded in part by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (GBMF9881) and the National Geographic Society.https://www.science.org/journal/sciencehj2023Mammal Research InstituteZoology and Entomolog

The influence of climate change advisory bodies on political debates: evidence from the UK Committee on Climate Change

Climate change advisory bodies are rapidly proliferating around the world, often with statutory underpinning. While they are argued to be an important component of effective climate governance, few studies have systematically assessed their political influence. Using the UK Committee on Climate Change (CCC) as a case, this paper investigates how such bodies influence political debates on climate change. To do so, we build an original dataset of all CCC mentions in UK Parliamentary proceedings from 2008–2018. We find that CCC analysis is used by all major political parties, that its influence has grown over time and that it has influenced policy debates both within its statutory remit (carbon budgets) and more broadly (energy policy and flood defence spending). Furthermore, most politicians have been supportive of the CCC. They have utilized the information it produces to hold government accountable and to argue for more ambitious policy. We find little evidence that CCC analysis is politicized or that it merely functions as a ‘legitimiser’, providing justification for the government’s pre-decided policy choices. Instead, we find that the CCC functions primarily as a knowledge broker, offering trusted information to policymakers, and at times as a policy entrepreneur. Overall, the CCC experience demonstrates that climate change advisory bodies can play a key role in climate governance. Key policy insights The information and analysis produced by the CCC is widely cited by Parliamentarians across the political spectrum and is often used as the technical basis for political arguments calling for greater ambition. CCC evidence has substantial influence in areas that are directly covered by its core statutory mandate, but also wider climate change-related Parliamentary debates, indicating knowledge spillovers. The UK experience shows that an expert advisory body can strengthen climate governance by serving as an impartial knowledge broker, contributing to more evidence-based and ambitious policymaking

Why nations lead or lag in energy transitions

Policy-driven change hinges on institutions that support insulation or compensation