Volltext-Downloads (blau) und Frontdoor-Views (grau)

Does the climate regime need new types of mitigation commitments?

  • Apart from the much-debated question of what legal form the 2015 climate agreement is supposed to have, another core issue is the substantive content of countries' commitments. While the climate regime has so far mostly been based on emission targets, literature has identified a broad range of other possible types of mitigation commitments, such as technology targets, emission price commitments, or commitments to specific policies and measures (PAMs). The nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) submitted by developing countries under the Cancún Agreements also show a broad range of different forms of participation. This article surveys the possible commitment types that have so far been discussed in literature and in the UNFCCC neApart from the much-debated question of what legal form the 2015 climate agreement is supposed to have, another core issue is the substantive content of countries' commitments. While the climate regime has so far mostly been based on emission targets, literature has identified a broad range of other possible types of mitigation commitments, such as technology targets, emission price commitments, or commitments to specific policies and measures (PAMs). The nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) submitted by developing countries under the Cancún Agreements also show a broad range of different forms of participation. This article surveys the possible commitment types that have so far been discussed in literature and in the UNFCCC negotiations and assesses their respective advantages and disadvantages against a set of criteria: environmental effectiveness, cost effectiveness, distributional aspects and institutional feasibility. The article finds that no commitment option provides a silver bullet. All options have several advantages but also disadvantages. The environmentally most effective way forward may lie in pursuing a multi-dimensional approach, combining emission targets with other commitment types to compensate for the drawbacks of the emission-based approach. However, such an approach would also increase complexity, both in terms of the negotiations and in terms of implementation and administration.show moreshow less

Download full text files

Export metadata

  • Export Bibtex
  • Export RIS

Additional Services

Share in Twitter Search Google Scholar

Statistics

frontdoor_oas
Metadaten
Document Type:Peer-Reviewed Article
Author:Wolfgang Sterk, Lukas Hermwille
URN (citable link):http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:wup4-opus-53055
Year of Publication:2013
Language:English
Source Title (English): Carbon & climate law review
Issue:4
First Page:270
Last Page:282
Department:Energie-, Verkehrs- und Klimapolitik
Dewey Decimal Classification:320 Politikwissenschaft
OpenAIRE:OpenAIRE
Licence (German):License LogoNutzungsbedingungen - Terms of use

$Rev: 13581 $