| FNI PUBLICATION
Kokorin, Alexey and Anna Korppoo
Russias Greenhouse Gas
Target 2020: Projections, Trends and Risks
Berlin, Friedrich Ebert
Stiftung, 2014, 17 p.
> Download the
report in English
Download the report in Russian
In September 2013, Russia adopted a
domestic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions target that limits emissions to 75 per
cent of the 1990 level by 2020. The structure and trends of the past and future
national GHG emissions are analysed based on the recent lower growth assumption
of the national economy. This makes the target achievable given that:
technological emission reduction opportunities are used effectively;
non-economic risks that can drive GHG emissions to exceed business-as-usual
scenarios are eliminated; and the use of carbon instruments is
Understanding the costs of climate change to the national
economy could make expenditure on mitigation acceptable and thus facilitate
establishing an ambitious post-2020 goal. The lack of information on these
costs is the basic reason for Russias quiescence on climate mitigation.
Any future international climate agreement will fail to change this without
awareness of the risks of climate change for the Russian Federation; As a
result, Russia is unlikely to proceed beyond the »economically
viable« development path almost equivalent to its business-as-usual
trajectory, which rejects the additional costs associated with emission
reductions. This is more or less equivalent to the adopted domestic target,
depending to some extent on which of the existing policies proves to be viable
'Exclusive Approaches to Climate Governance: More Effective
than the UNFCCC?'
In Cherry, T.L., J. Hovi and D.M. McEvoy (eds),
Toward a New Climate Agreement: Conflict, Resolution and Governance.
London, Routledge, 2014, pp. 167-181.
> More information about the book
UN climate regime has proven ineffective in a problem-solving perspective.
Therefore it is understandable that other and more exclusive approaches have
been called for. However such forums have existed for quite some time already.
This brief empirical examination of some of the most important alternative or
supplemnentary international institutions demonstrate that they do not
represent panacea for dealing more effectively with climate change. The
malignancy of the issue is so severe that it cannot be removed by clever design
alone. Still, in a learning perspective these institutions may have some
influence by showing that more pragmaticicallt-oriented bottom-up sector
approaches can be a supplementary avenue to the UNFCCC. Whether they will turn
out to be more effective, remains to be seen. Also, this study indicates that
these other forums still regard the UNFCCC as the most important and legitimate
international institution to deal with climate change.
Wettestad, Jørgen and
'The EU's Quest
for Linked Carbon Markets: Turbulence and Headwind'
In Cherry, T.L., J.
Hovi and D.M. McEvoy (eds), Toward a New Climate Agreement: Conflict,
Resolution and Governance. London, Routledge, 2014, pp. 266-279.
More information about the book
Emissions Trading System (ETS) of the (EU) is the largest carbon trading market
in the world, but climate change is a global challenge. In 2009, the EU
announced its ambition of having linked carbon markets OECD-wide by 2015. This
article assesses the EUs progress in reaching this goal, inquires whether
the explanatory factors lie within the EU itself or in the external
environment, and discusses the main prospects for the future. Despite some
progress, no interconnected emission trading system will cover the entire OECD
area by 2015so the EU is lagging behind in terms of achieving its own
ambitions. Within the EU, member-state pressure for external linking has been
modest, with Germany and the UK as notable exceptions. The European Commission
has worked to establish links between the EU ETS and other systems, with only
modest backing from other EU bodies. Globally, the development of emissions
trading has progressed slowly. Furthermore, external interest in linking up
with an increasingly crisis-ridden EU ETS has been variable, with, for
instance, reluctant US actors and an eager Australian government. Experience
thus far indicates that the bottomup route to a global climate regime
offered by linking is a long-term projectcertainly not a quick
'EU Emissions Trading: Acievements, Challenges,
In Cherry, T.L., J. Hovi and D.M. McEvoy (eds), Toward a
New Climate Agreement: Conflict, Resolution and Governance. London,
Routledge, 2014, pp. 254-264.
> More information about the book
EU ETS is a grand climate policy experimentthe first-ever international
cap-and-trade system to target industry. The ultimate aim is to create a global
carbon market by encouraging other major emitters, not least the USA and China,
to follow suit. However, the economic recession that developed from 2008 and
the resultant conflict with other energy policy instruments has put the EU ETS
to the test. A significant supplydemand imbalance of allowances has
accumulated, followed by a low carbon price. This chapter explores possible
solutions for the EU, as well as presenting a brief analysis of the evolution
and the achievements of the system.
Norichika Kanie and Peter M. Haas
'Actor Configurations in the Climate
Regime: The States Call the Shots'
In Kanie, N., S. Andresen and P.M.
Haas (eds), Improving Global Environmental Governance: Best Practices for
Architecture and Agency. London/New York, Routledge, 2014, pp.
> More information
role of various actors and actor combinations are discussed in the various
stages set out in the introductory chapter of the book.In the agenda setting
stage non-state actors as well as key indfividuals played a key role- However
as these are mostly activists of various kinds they contributed to downplay the
difficulty of the issue. The US played the key role in setting up the IPCC.
When negotiations started most non-state actors were marginalized and the
process was firmly in the control of the states. The North-South divide has
been the most important reason for lacking progress, The compliance regime has
also proved to be rather weak in practice. Both states and non-state actors in
various combinations have played a role in implementing commitments. Altgough
most key states have introduced a number of measures and non-state actors have
also been active this has not been enough to stop the rising emissions. The
main drivers in the development towards rising emisisons are economic growth,
demography and general forces. Climate based measures initiated has not been
enough to halt this development, Thibgs might have been different with
non-state actors playing a more significant role but this has proved impossible
Birger, Guri Bang and Miranda Schreurs
'Explaining Growing Climate
Policy Differences Between the European Union and the United States'
Global Environmental Politics, Vol 13, No 4, 2013, pp. 61-79.
Purchase the original article here
has been a strong rhetorical difference between the European Union (EU) and the
United States on climate policy matters, it is really only since the mid- to
late- 2000s that this difference has resulted in major differences in the range
and depth of binding policies addressing climate change. Increased climate
change concern in the United States in 20062008 created new opportunities
for convergence, but failed to lead to policy change. We propose three
explanations for the major differences in policy outcomes in the EU and the
United States. First, distinctly different agenda-setting privileges among
policy-makers in the EU and the United States caused diverse potentials for
consultation and issue linkages on energy and climate policy. Second, while
issue linkage helped overcome distributional obstacles in the EU, in contrast
it led to more complexity and higher obstacles in the United States. Finally,
legislative rules, procedures, and norms constrained the coalition-building
efforts among lawmakers differently, leading to different negotiation processes
and outcomes. Such differences in agenda-setting privileges, potential for
issue linkage, and legislative procedures resulted in divergent climate
policies in the EU and the United States that leave them wide apart in
international climate negotiations.
|More Climate change publications
FNI's Climate change
|More publication summaries:
|Free e-subscription to FNI's climate change
Click here to register.