IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v56y2013icp285-292.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rational climate mitigation goals

Author

Listed:
  • Edvardsson Björnberg, Karin

Abstract

The overall goal of the UNFCCC is to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. In policy practice, this goal is mainly operationalized through three types of mitigation targets: emission, atmospheric concentration and temperature targets. The typical function of climate mitigation goals is to regulate action towards goal achievement. This is done in several ways. Mitigation goals help the structuring of the greenhouse gas (GHG) abatement action, over time and between agents; they constitute a standard against which GHG abatement can be assessed and evaluated; they motivate climate conscious behavior; and discourage defection from cooperative abatement regimes. Although the three targets clearly relate to one another, there could be differences in how well they fulfill these functions. In this article, the effectiveness of emission, concentration and temperature targets in guiding and motivating action towards the UNFCCC's overall aim is analyzed using a framework for rational goal evaluation developed by Edvardsson and Hansson (2005) as an analytical tool. It is argued that to regulate action effectively, mitigation goals should ideally satisfy four criteria: precision, evaluability, attainability and motivity. Only then can the target fulfill its typical function, i.e., to guide and motivate action in a way that facilitates goal achievement.

Suggested Citation

  • Edvardsson Björnberg, Karin, 2013. "Rational climate mitigation goals," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 285-292.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:56:y:2013:i:c:p:285-292
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.12.057
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151201110X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.12.057?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Juan D. Carrillo & Mathias Dewatripont, 2008. "Promises, Promises, ..," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(531), pages 1453-1473, August.
    2. Rosencrantz, Holger & Edvardsson, Karin & Hansson, Sven Ove, 2007. "Vision Zero - Is it irrational?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 559-567, July.
    3. C�dric Philibert & Jonathan Pershing, 2001. "Considering the options: climate targets for all countries," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 211-227, June.
    4. Johannes Urpelainen, 2010. "Enforcing international environmental cooperation: Technological standards can help," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 475-496, December.
    5. D. Dudek & A. Golub, 2003. ""Intensity" targets: pathway or roadblock to preventing climate change while enhancing economic growth?," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(sup2), pages 21-28, December.
    6. William A. Pizer, 2005. "The case for intensity targets," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(4), pages 455-462, July.
    7. Tol, Richard S.J., 2007. "Europe's long-term climate target: A critical evaluation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 424-432, January.
    8. Karin Edvardsson & Sven Hansson, 2005. "When is a goal rational?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 24(2), pages 343-361, April.
    9. Detlef van Vuuren & Michel den Elzen & Marcel Berk & Andre de Moor, 2002. "An evaluation of the level of ambition and implications of the Bush Climate Change Initiative," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(4), pages 293-301, December.
    10. Neil Strachan, 2007. "Setting greenhouse gas emission targets under baseline uncertainty: the Bush Climate Change Initiative," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 455-470, May.
    11. repec:ulb:ulbeco:2013/9639 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Kolstad, Charles D., 2005. "The simple analytics of greenhouse gas emission intensity reduction targets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(17), pages 2231-2236, November.
    13. Randall Lutter, 2000. "Developing Countries' Greenhouse Emmissions: Uncertainty and Implications for Participation in the Kyoto Protocol," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4), pages 93-120.
    14. Malte Meinshausen & Nicolai Meinshausen & William Hare & Sarah C. B. Raper & Katja Frieler & Reto Knutti & David J. Frame & Myles R. Allen, 2009. "Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C," Nature, Nature, vol. 458(7242), pages 1158-1162, April.
    15. A. Denny Ellerman & Ian Sue Wing, 2003. "Absolute versus intensity-based emission caps," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(sup2), pages 7-20, December.
    16. Timilsina, Govinda R., 2008. "Atmospheric stabilization of CO2 emissions: Near-term reductions and absolute versus intensity-based targets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 1927-1936, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rietbergen, Martijn G. & Blok, Kornelis, 2010. "Setting SMART targets for industrial energy use and industrial energy efficiency," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4339-4354, August.
    2. Jinhua Zhao, 2022. "Aggregate emission intensity targets: Applications to the Paris Agreement," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 60(4), pages 1875-1897, October.
    3. Frank Jotzo & John C. V. Pezzey, 2005. "Optimal intensity targets for emissions trading under uncertainty (now replaced by EEN0605)," Economics and Environment Network Working Papers 0504, Australian National University, Economics and Environment Network.
    4. Marschinski, Robert & Edenhofer, Ottmar, 2010. "Revisiting the case for intensity targets: Better incentives and less uncertainty for developing countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 5048-5058, September.
    5. Frank Jotzo & John C. V. Pezzey, 2006. "Optimal Intensity Targets for Greenhouse Emissions Trading Under Uncertainty," Economics and Environment Network Working Papers 0605, Australian National University, Economics and Environment Network.
    6. Bang, Guri & Froyn, Camilla Bretteville & Hovi, Jon & Menz, Fredric C., 2007. "The United States and international climate cooperation: International "pull" versus domestic "push"," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 1282-1291, February.
    7. Mariana Conte Grand, 2016. "GDP-related emission targets weaknesses: the case of Argentina," CEMA Working Papers: Serie Documentos de Trabajo. 599, Universidad del CEMA.
    8. Marschinski, Robert & Lecocq, Franck, 2006. "Do intensity targets control uncertainty better than quotas ? Conditions, calibrations, and caveats," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4033, The World Bank.
    9. Frank Jotzo & John Pezzey, 2007. "Optimal intensity targets for greenhouse gas emissions trading under uncertainty," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(2), pages 259-284, October.
    10. Shaheen, Susan A. & Bejamin-Chung, Jade & Allen, Denise & Howe-Steiger, Linda, 2009. "Achieving California’s Land Use and Transportation Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets Under AB 32: An Exploration of Potential Policy Processes and Mechanisms," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt8bm4t7w5, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    11. Hossa Almutairi & Samir Elhedhli, 2014. "Carbon tax based on the emission factor: a bilevel programming approach," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 58(4), pages 795-815, April.
    12. Gilbert E. Metcalf & David Weisbach, 2012. "Linking Policies When Tastes Differ: Global Climate Policy in a Heterogeneous World," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 6(1), pages 110-129.
    13. Shreekar Pradhan & J. Scott Holladay & Mohammed Mohsin & Shreekar Pradhan, 2015. "Environmental Policy Instruments and Uncertainties Under Free Trade and Capital Mobility," EcoMod2015 8102, EcoMod.
    14. Fischer, Carolyn & Springborn, Michael, 2011. "Emissions targets and the real business cycle: Intensity targets versus caps or taxes," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 352-366.
    15. Catton, Will, 2009. "Dynamic carbon caps. Splitting the bill: A fairer solution post-Kyoto?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5636-5649, December.
    16. Branger, Frédéric & Quirion, Philippe, 2014. "Price versus Quantities versus Indexed Quantities," Climate Change and Sustainable Development 187277, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    17. Wang, Banban & Pizer, William A. & Munnings, Clayton, 2022. "Price limits in a tradable performance standard," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    18. Olli-Pekka Kuuselaa & Gregory S. Amacher & Kwok Ping Tsang, 2013. "Intensity-Based Permit Quotas and the Business Cycle: Does Flexibility Pay Off?," Research Department Publications IDB-WP-450, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.
    19. Max Meulemann, 2017. "An Empirical Assessment Of Components Of Climate Architectures," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 8(04), pages 1-36, November.
    20. Piero Morseletto & Frank Biermann & Philipp Pattberg, 2017. "Governing by targets: reductio ad unum and evolution of the two-degree climate target," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 655-676, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:56:y:2013:i:c:p:285-292. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.