Gentleman, Scholar, Visionary- A Living Tribute to Harold K. Jacobson

Tribute to Harold Jacobson

Gentleman, Scholar, Visionary- A Living Tribute to Harold K. Jacobson

Tribute to Harold Jacobson

Does politics impact carbon emissions?

"Do political variables influence long-term environmental transitions? The discussion on the determinants of the environmental performance of countries has been dominated by a focus on the Environmental Kuznets curve. This concept concentrated primarily on the role of economic factors, in particular per capita income levels. By contrast, we outline both conceptually and empirically how political factors can affect long-term carbon trajectories. Our findings from an error-correction model suggest that political factors are an important explanatory variable for carbon emissions in over 100 countries during the period 1970-2004. The results show that political capacity reduces carbon emission in OECD countries whereas political constraints, democracy and the Kyoto Protocol reduce long-term carbon emission in the group of all countries as well as in non-OECD countries." [author's abstract

International Nonregimes: A Research Agenda1

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/146934/1/j.1468-2486.2007.00672.x.pd

Long-Term Environmental Policy: Definition, Knowledge, Future Research

Considering the long-term is not new, yet we seem to be overwhelmed by the long-term nature of many of our environmental policy problems. Following a definition of long-term policy problems, this editorial introduces the contributions to this special issue of Global Environmental Politics and outlines three major challenges for future research, including the time inconsistency problem, the effect of democratic and decentralized governance on problem-solving, as well as institutional designs to prevent or recover from unwanted long-term policy outcomes. (c) 2009 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The Effect of Global Environmental Regimes: A Measurement Concept

The article outlines a method to measure the effect which international regimes have on solving global environmental problems such as global climate change. By using political-economic cost/benefit analysis, a no-regime counterfactual and a collective optimum (lower and upper bounds) are derived. By comparing the actual performance of a regime to these bounds, a simple coefficient of regime effectiveness can be computed. After theoretically deriving the various bounds, the authors discuss the determining factors and provide guidance on how such a research agenda could be pursued empirically. The authors conclude with suggestions to further refine the measurement concept and its merit for public policy

Methods for Long-Term Environmental Policy Challenges

This article provides a concise overview of methods for analyzing policy choices that have been used in the study of long-term environmental challenges. We open with an overview of the broad classes of methods used for long-term policy analysis, and subsequent sections will describe in depth three particular methods. They are: statistical models, such as employed in the debate on the environmental Kuznets curve, which infer past patterns from data and project them into the future; robust decision-making, a decision analytic framework that supports choices under deep uncertainty, and relates near-term policy interventions to different clusters of long-term environmental futures; and adaptive control and agent-based modeling, which provide an approach to simulation modeling that focuses on cooperation and conflict among multiple actors and their choice of strategies. While all three approaches can be used for various applications, this article focuses on the challenge of a potential transition to a low-carbon future to illustrate the strengths, weaknesses, and synergies among the respective methods. In the final section, we offer guidance for choosing among methods. (c) 2009 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

US presidents and the failure to ratify multilateral environmental agreements

Whereas the US President signed the Kyoto Protocol, the failure of the US Congress to ratify it seriously hampered subsequent international climate cooperation. This recent US trend, of signing environmental treaties but failing to ratify them, could thwart attempts to come to a future climate agreement. Two complementary explanations of this trend are proposed. First, the political system of the US has distinct institutional features that make it difficult for presidents to predict whether the Senate will give its advice and consent to multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) and whether Congress will pass the required enabling legislation. Second, elected for a fixed term, US presidents might benefit politically from supporting MEAs even when knowing that legislative support is not forthcoming. Four policy implications are explored, concerning the scope for unilateral presidential action, the potential for bipartisan congressional support, the effectiveness of a treaty without the US, and the prospects for a deep, new climate treaty

Why the United States did not become a party to the Kyoto Protocol: German, Norwegian, and US perspectives

According to two-level game theory, negotiators tailor agreements at the international level to be ratifiable at the domestic level. This did not happen in the Kyoto negotiations, however, in the US case. We interviewed 26 German, Norwegian, and US participants in and observers of the climate negotiations concerning their views on three explanations for why the United States did not become a party to Kyoto. Explanation 1 argues that Kyoto delegations mistakenly thought the Senate was bluffing when adopting Byrd–Hagel. Explanation 2 contends that Europeans preferred a more ambitious agreement without US participation to a less ambitious agreement with US participation. Finally, explanation 3 suggests that in Kyoto the Clinton–Gore administration gave up on Senate ratification, and essentially pushed for an agreement that would provide them a climate-friendly face. While all explanations received some support from interviewees, explanation 1 and (particularly) explanation 3 received considerably more support than explanation 2