IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/tcpoxx/v20y2020is1ps58-s73.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumption-oriented policy instruments for fostering greenhouse gas mitigation

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Grubb
  • Doug Crawford-Brown
  • Karsten Neuhoff
  • Karin Schanes
  • Sonja Hawkins
  • Alexandra Poncia

Abstract

Most policy instruments to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have focused on producers, and on the energy efficiency of buildings, vehicles and other products. Behavioural changes related to climate change also impact ‘in-use’ emissions, and potentially, emissions both ‘upstream’ (including from imported goods) and ‘downstream’ (eg disposal). Consumption-oriented policies may provide avenues to additional and cost-effective emission reductions, but are less prevalent, in part because of political sensitivities around government efforts to shape individual-level mitigation behaviour. In this paper, we explore policy instruments for encouraging low carbon behaviour in the EU context. Drawing on a literature survey and interviews, as part of the EU Carbon-CAP project, we develop a list of 33 potential instruments, present a systematic methodology for assessing their potential impact and feasibility, and apply this to rank instruments of most interest. Most instruments involve a clear trade-off between their potential impact and feasibility; about half feature in the top three scoring categories, many being voluntary approaches, which may be easier to implement, but with limited or highly uncertain impact. However, we identify a handful of top-scoring instruments that deserve far more policy attention. The complexity of consumer and corporate motivations and behaviours suggests that instruments should be trialled and monitored (e.g. in regions / individual States) before widespread introduction. Most would also be most effective when nested within wider policy packages, to address the varied behavioural motivations and stages of supply chains.Key policy insights Influencing consumer behaviour has been little used in climate policy and is politically sensitive and complex, but can address emissions that have largely escaped influence to date.A few instruments stand out as particularly promising, including: technology lists; supply chain procurement by leading retail companies; a carbon-intensive materials consumption charge; and key infrastructure improvements.A common trade-off between potential impact and likely feasibility points to the importance of government-business collaboration to secure support and impact.More ambitious transformation would require a mix of production and consumption-oriented policy instruments.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Grubb & Doug Crawford-Brown & Karsten Neuhoff & Karin Schanes & Sonja Hawkins & Alexandra Poncia, 2020. "Consumption-oriented policy instruments for fostering greenhouse gas mitigation," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(S1), pages 58-73, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:tcpoxx:v:20:y:2020:i:s1:p:s58-s73
    DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2020.1730151
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/14693062.2020.1730151
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/14693062.2020.1730151?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pohekar, S. D. & Ramachandran, M., 2004. "Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning--A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 365-381, August.
    2. -, 2009. "The economics of climate change," Sede Subregional de la CEPAL para el Caribe (Estudios e Investigaciones) 38679, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    3. Joseph E. Aldy & Scott Barrett & Robert N. Stavins, 2003. "Thirteen plus one: a comparison of global climate policy architectures," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(4), pages 373-397, December.
    4. Reisch, Lucia A. & Zhao, Min, 2017. "Behavioural economics, consumer behaviour and consumer policy: state of the art," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(2), pages 190-206, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Xiu Cheng & Ruyin Long & Fan Wu, 2022. "How Symbols and Social Interaction Influence the Experienced Utility of Sustainable Lifestyle Guiding Policies: Evidence from Eastern China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-22, April.
    2. Annika Carlsson Kanyama & Jonas Nässén & René Benders, 2021. "Shifting expenditure on food, holidays, and furnishings could lower greenhouse gas emissions by almost 40%," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 25(6), pages 1602-1616, December.
    3. Samantha Linton & Amelia Clarke & Laura Tozer, 2020. "Strategies and Governance for Implementing Deep Decarbonization Plans at the Local Level," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-21, December.
    4. Anderson, Brilé & Cammeraat, Emile & Dechezleprêtre, Antoine & Dressler, Luisa & Gonne, Nicolas & Lalanne, Guy & Martins Guilhoto, Joaquim & Theodoropoulos, Konstantinos, 2023. "Designing policy packages for a climate-neutral industry: A case study from the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).

    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. Daron Acemoglu & Philippe Aghion & Leonardo Bursztyn & David Hemous, 2012. "The Environment and Directed Technical Change," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(1), pages 131-166, February.
    2. Venmans, Frank, 2012. "A literature-based multi-criteria evaluation of the EU ETS," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(8), pages 5493-5510.
    3. Wolfgang Buchholz & Cornelia Ohl & Aneta Ufert, 2012. "Ökonomische Blickwinkel auf Gerechtigkeitsfragen am Beispiel des globalen Klimaschutzes," Discussion Paper Series RECAP15 001, RECAP15, European University Viadrina, Frankfurt (Oder).
    4. Robert N. Stavins, 2011. "The Problem of the Commons: Still Unsettled after 100 Years," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(1), pages 81-108, February.
    5. J. Hourcade & B. Perrissin Fabert & J. Rozenberg, 2012. "Venturing into uncharted financial waters: an essay on climate-friendly finance," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 165-186, May.
    6. Anthony Michael Barrett, 2017. "Value of Global Catastrophic Risk (GCR) Information: Cost-Effectiveness-Based Approach for GCR Reduction," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 187-203, September.
    7. Higgins, Paul A.T., 2013. "Frameworks for pricing greenhouse gas emissions and the policy objectives they promote," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1301-1308.
    8. S. Niggol Seo, 2015. "Adaptation to Global Warming as an Optimal Transition Process to A Greenhouse World," Economic Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(2), pages 272-284, June.
    9. Sgouris Sgouridis & Abdulla Kaya & Denes Csala, 2016. "Switching Economics for Physics and the Carbon Price Inflation: Problems in Integrated Assessment Models and their Implications," Papers 1603.06196, arXiv.org.
    10. Fankhauser, Samuel & Hepburn, Cameron, 2010. "Designing carbon markets. Part I: Carbon markets in time," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4363-4370, August.
    11. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    12. Li, Aijun & Du, Nan & Wei, Qian, 2014. "The cross-country implications of alternative climate policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 155-163.
    13. Strand, Jon, 2011. "Carbon offsets with endogenous environmental policy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 371-378, March.
    14. Bosetti, Valentina & Carraro, Carlo & Duval, Romain & Tavoni, Massimo, 2011. "What should we expect from innovation? A model-based assessment of the environmental and mitigation cost implications of climate-related R&D," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1313-1320.
    15. Richard S. J. Tol & In Chang Hwang & Frédéric Reynès, 2012. "The Effect of Learning on Climate Policy under Fat-tailed Uncertainty," Working Paper Series 5312, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    16. Fujii, Hidemichi & Managi, Shunsuke, 2013. "Which industry is greener? An empirical study of nine industries in OECD countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 381-388.
    17. Pycroft, Jonathan & Vergano, Lucia & Hope, Chris & Paci, Daniele & Ciscar, Juan Carlos, 2011. "A tale of tails: Uncertainty and the social cost of carbon dioxide," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 5, pages 1-29.
    18. Rubio Rodríguez, M.A. & Ruyck, J. De & Díaz, P. Roque & Verma, V.K. & Bram, S., 2011. "An LCA based indicator for evaluation of alternative energy routes," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(3), pages 630-635, March.
    19. Simon Levin & Anastasios Xepapadeas, 2021. "On the Coevolution of Economic and Ecological Systems," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 13(1), pages 355-377, October.
    20. Hahn Robert, 2010. "Designing Smarter Regulation with Improved Benefit-Cost Analysis," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-19, July.

    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:20:y:2020:i:s1:p:s58-s73. 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: 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.