Targets and Timetables: Good Policy But Bad Politics?
Arizona State University Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law
ARCHITECTURES FOR AGREEMENT: ADDRESSING GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE POST-KYOTO WORLD, Joseph E. Aldy, Robert N. Stavins, eds., Cambridge University Press, 2007
UGA Legal Studies Research Paper No. 07-014
From a policy perspective, a climate architecture based on economy-wide, binding emissions targets, combined with emissions trading, has many virtues. But even such an architecture represents good climate policy, it is far more questionable whether it represents good climate politics - at least in the near-term, for the upcoming "post-2012" negotiations. Given the wide range of differences in national perspectives and preferences regarding climate change, a more flexible, bottom-up approach may be needed, which builds on the efforts that are already beginning to emerge, by allowing different countries to assume different types of international commitments - not only absolute targets, but also indexed targets, taxes, efficiency standards, and so forth. Such an approach would not provide a long-term solution to the climate change problem; the more costly climate change mitigation is, the more states will want greater assurance that their efforts are being reciprocated by other states. But a bottom-up approach might help break the current impasse and get the ball rolling. It reflects, not ideal policy, but rather less than ideal politics.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 11
Keywords: climate change, international environmental law, global warming
JEL Classification: K32, K33Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: November 29, 2007 ; Last revised: August 24, 2009
© 2015 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.344 seconds