IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/tcpoxx/v13y2013i6p649-664.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Developments in national climate change mitigation legislation and strategy

Author

Listed:
  • Navroz K. Dubash
  • Markus Hagemann
  • Niklas H�hne
  • Prabhat Upadhyaya

Abstract

The results are presented from a survey of national legislation and strategies to mitigate climate change covering almost all United Nations member states between 2007 and 2012. This data set is distinguished from the existing literature in its breadth of coverage, its focus on national policies (rather than international pledges), and on the use of objective metrics rather than normative criteria. The focus of the data is limited to national climate legislation and strategies and does not cover subnational or sectoral measures. Climate legislation and strategies are important because they can: enhance incentives for climate mitigation; provide mechanisms for mainstreaming; and provide a focal point for actors. Three broad findings emerge. First, there has been a substantial increase in climate legislation and strategies between 2007 and 2012: 67% of global GHG emissions are now under national climate legislation or strategy compared to 45% in 2007. Second, there are substantial regional effects to the patterns, with most increases in non-Annex I countries, particularly in Asia and Latin America. Third, many more countries have adopted climate strategies than have adopted climate legislation between 2007 and 2012. The article concludes with recommendations for future research. Policy relevance The increase in climate legislation and strategy is significant. This spread suggests that, at the national level, there is some movement in reshaping climate governance despite the relatively slow pace of global negotiations, although the exact implications of this spread require further research on stringency of actions and their implementation. Asia and Latin America represent the biggest improvements, while OECD countries, which start from a high base, remain relatively stagnant. Implications of regional patterns are further refined by an analysis by emissions, which shows that some areas of low levels of legislation and strategy are also areas of relatively low emissions. A broad trend toward an emphasis on strategies rather than legislation, with the significant exception of China, calls for enhanced research into the practical impact of national non-binding climate strategies versus binding legislation on countries' actual emissions over time.

Suggested Citation

  • Navroz K. Dubash & Markus Hagemann & Niklas H�hne & Prabhat Upadhyaya, 2013. "Developments in national climate change mitigation legislation and strategy," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(6), pages 649-664, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:tcpoxx:v:13:y:2013:i:6:p:649-664
    DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2013.845409
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/14693062.2013.845409
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/14693062.2013.845409?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.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shaikh Eskander & Sam Fankhauser & Joana Setzer, 2021. "Global Lessons from Climate Change Legislation and Litigation," Environmental and Energy Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 2(1), pages 44-82.
    2. Elin Lerum Boasson & Dave Huitema, 2017. "Climate governance entrepreneurship: Emerging findings and a new research agenda," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(8), pages 1343-1361, December.
    3. Fankhauser, Sam & Gennaioli, Caterina & Collins, Murray, 2015. "The political economy of passing climate change legislation: evidence from a survey," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 63352, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Oliver Heidrich & Alistair C. Ford & Richard J. Dawson & David A. C. Manning & Eugene Mohareb & Marco Raugei & Joris Baars & Mohammad Ali Rajaeifar, 2022. "LAYERS: A Decision-Support Tool to Illustrate and Assess the Supply and Value Chain for the Energy Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-19, June.
    5. Dave Huitema & Andrew Jordan & Stefania Munaretto & Mikael Hildén, 2018. "Policy experimentation: core concepts, political dynamics, governance and impacts," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(2), pages 143-159, June.
    6. Liu, Ying & Feng, Chao, 2023. "Promoting renewable energy through national energy legislation," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    7. Yoko Mochizuki & Audrey Bryan, 2015. "Climate Change Education in the Context of Education for Sustainable Development: Rationale and Principles," Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, , vol. 9(1), pages 4-26, March.
    8. Radoslav S. Dimitrov, 2016. "The Paris Agreement on Climate Change: Behind Closed Doors," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 16(3), pages 1-11, August.
    9. Thomas Hale, 2020. "Catalytic Cooperation," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 20(4), pages 73-98, Autumn.
    10. Stella D. Juventia & Sarah K. Jones & Marie-Angélique Laporte & Roseline Remans & Chiara Villani & Natalia Estrada-Carmona, 2020. "Text Mining National Commitments towards Agrobiodiversity Conservation and Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-19, January.
    11. Marcel J. Dorsch & Christian Flachsland, 2017. "A Polycentric Approach to Global Climate Governance," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 17(2), pages 45-64, May.
    12. Neha B Joseph & Navroz K Dubash, 2015. "The Institutionalisation of Climate Policy in India: Designing a Development-Focused, Co-Benefits Based Approach," Working Papers id:6993, eSocialSciences.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:tcpoxx:v:13:y:2013:i:6:p:649-664. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/tcpo20 .

    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.