IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2304.14960.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Political Strategies to Overcome Climate Policy Obstructionism

Author

Listed:
  • Sugandha Srivastav
  • Ryan Rafaty

Abstract

Great socio-economic transitions see the demise of certain industries and the rise of others. The losers of the transition tend to deploy a variety of tactics to obstruct change. We develop a political-economy model of interest group competition and garner evidence of tactics deployed in the global climate movement. From this we deduce a set of strategies for how the climate movement competes against entrenched hydrocarbon interests. Five strategies for overcoming obstructionism emerge: (1) Appeasement, which involves compensating the losers; (2) Co-optation, which seeks to instigate change by working with incumbents; (3) Institutionalism, which involves changes to public institutions to support decarbonization; (4) Antagonism, which creates reputational or litigation costs to inaction; and (5) Countervailance, which makes low-carbon alternatives more competitive. We argue that each strategy addresses the problem of obstructionism through a different lens, reflecting a diversity of actors and theories of change within the climate movement. The choice of which strategy to pursue depends on the institutional context.

Suggested Citation

  • Sugandha Srivastav & Ryan Rafaty, 2023. "Political Strategies to Overcome Climate Policy Obstructionism," Papers 2304.14960, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2304.14960
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.14960
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Farmer, J. Doyne & Lafond, François, 2016. "How predictable is technological progress?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 647-665.
    2. Robert Brulle & Jason Carmichael & J. Jenkins, 2012. "Shifting public opinion on climate change: an empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S., 2002–2010," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 114(2), pages 169-188, September.
    3. Stefano DellaVigna & Ruben Durante & Brian Knight & Eliana La Ferrara, 2016. "Market-Based Lobbying: Evidence from Advertising Spending in Italy," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 224-256, January.
    4. Dafermos, Yannis & Nikolaidi, Maria & Galanis, Giorgos, 2018. "Climate Change, Financial Stability and Monetary Policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 219-234.
    5. James N. Druckman & Mary C. McGrath, 2019. "The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 9(2), pages 111-119, February.
    6. Zhao, Stephen & Alexandroff, Alan, 2019. "Current and future struggles to eliminate coal," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 511-520.
    7. Jonas Meckling & Thomas Sterner & Gernot Wagner, 2017. "Policy sequencing toward decarbonization," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 2(12), pages 918-922, December.
    8. Jordi Blanes i Vidal & Mirko Draca & Christian Fons-Rosen, 2012. "Revolving Door Lobbyists," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(7), pages 3731-3748, December.
    9. Sung Eun Kim & Johannes Urpelainen, 2017. "The Polarization of American Environmental Policy: A Regression Discontinuity Analysis of Senate and House Votes, 1971–2013," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 34(4), pages 456-484, July.
    10. Robert Brulle, 2014. "Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 122(4), pages 681-694, February.
    11. Pedro R. R. Rochedo & Britaldo Soares-Filho & Roberto Schaeffer & Eduardo Viola & Alexandre Szklo & André F. P. Lucena & Alexandre Koberle & Juliana Leroy Davis & Raoni Rajão & Regis Rathmann, 2018. "The threat of political bargaining to climate mitigation in Brazil," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 8(8), pages 695-698, August.
    12. Jonas Meckling, 2019. "Governing renewables: Policy feedback in a global energy transition," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 37(2), pages 317-338, March.
    13. Thomas T. Holyoke, 2009. "Interest Group Competition and Coalition Formation," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(2), pages 360-375, April.
    14. J.-F. Mercure & H. Pollitt & J. E. Viñuales & N. R. Edwards & P. B. Holden & U. Chewpreecha & P. Salas & I. Sognnaes & A. Lam & F. Knobloch, 2018. "Macroeconomic impact of stranded fossil fuel assets," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 8(7), pages 588-593, July.
    15. Skovgaard,Jakob & van Asselt,Harro (ed.), 2018. "The Politics of Fossil Fuel Subsidies and their Reform," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781108416795, Enero-Abr.
    16. Marcos Chamon & Ethan Kaplan, 2013. "The Iceberg Theory of Campaign Contributions: Political Threats and Interest Group Behavior," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 1-31, February.
    17. Breetz, Hanna & Mildenberger, Matto & Stokes, Leah, 2018. "The political logics of clean energy transitions," Business and Politics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(4), pages 492-522, December.
    18. Jochen Markard & Daniel Rosenbloom, 2020. "Political conflict and climate policy: the European emissions trading system as a Trojan Horse for the low-carbon transition?," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(9), pages 1092-1111, October.
    19. Gullberg, Anne Therese, 2008. "Lobbying friends and foes in climate policy: The case of business and environmental interest groups in the European Union," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 2954-2962, August.
    20. Mildenberger, Matto & Tingley, Dustin, 2019. "Beliefs about Climate Beliefs: The Importance of Second-Order Opinions for Climate Politics," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 1279-1307, October.
    21. Michaël Aklin & Johannes Urpelainen, 2013. "Political Competition, Path Dependence, and the Strategy of Sustainable Energy Transitions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(3), pages 643-658, July.
    22. Robert J. Brulle, 2018. "The climate lobby: a sectoral analysis of lobbying spending on climate change in the USA, 2000 to 2016," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 149(3), pages 289-303, August.
    23. Dan Tong & Qiang Zhang & Yixuan Zheng & Ken Caldeira & Christine Shearer & Chaopeng Hong & Yue Qin & Steven J. Davis, 2019. "Committed emissions from existing energy infrastructure jeopardize 1.5 °C climate target," Nature, Nature, vol. 572(7769), pages 373-377, August.
    24. Justin Farrell & Kathryn McConnell & Robert Brulle, 2019. "Evidence-based strategies to combat scientific misinformation," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 9(3), pages 191-195, March.
    25. Jonas Meckling & Thomas Sterner & Gernot Wagner, 2018. "Publisher Correction: Policy sequencing toward decarbonization," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 3(3), pages 243-243, March.
    26. Ryan Rafaty & Sugandha Srivastav & Björn Hoops, 2020. "Revoking coal mining permits: an economic and legal analysis," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(8), pages 980-996, September.
    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. Johannes Brehm & Henri Gruhl, 2024. "Increase in concerns about climate change following climate strikes and civil disobedience in Germany," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-9, December.

    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. Srivastav, Sugandha & Rafaty, Ryan, 2021. "Five Worlds of Political Strategy in the Climate Movement," INET Oxford Working Papers 2021-07, Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford.
    2. Lackner, Teresa & Fierro, Luca E. & Mellacher, Patrick, 2025. "Opinion dynamics meet agent-based climate economics: An integrated analysis of carbon taxation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    3. Møller, Karl Magnus, 2024. "Domestic renewable energy industries and national decarbonization policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    4. Hansen, T.A., 2022. "Stranded assets and reduced profits: Analyzing the economic underpinnings of the fossil fuel industry's resistance to climate stabilization," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    5. Algers, Jonas & Gong, Jindan & Nykvist, Björn & Åhman, Max, 2025. "Competition and climate policy in the steel transition: Comparing costs and subsidies in the US and the EU," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    6. Baiardi, Donatella & Morana, Claudio, 2021. "Climate change awareness: Empirical evidence for the European Union," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    7. Nicolas Schmid & Leonore Haelg & Sebastian Sewerin & Tobias S. Schmidt & Irina Simmen, 2021. "Governing complex societal problems: The impact of private on public regulation through technological change," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 840-855, July.
    8. Mark Purdon & Julie Witcover & Colin Murphy & Sonya Ziaja & Mark Winfield & Genevieve Giuliano & Charles Séguin & Colleen Kaiser & Jacques Papy & Lewis Fulton, 2021. "Climate and transportation policy sequencing in California and Quebec," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(5), pages 596-630, September.
    9. Muzhou Zhang, 2023. "Policy diffusion and the interdependent fuel taxes," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(12), pages 1-8, December.
    10. Gregor Semieniuk & Emanuele Campiglio & Jean‐Francois Mercure & Ulrich Volz & Neil R. Edwards, 2021. "Low‐carbon transition risks for finance," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), January.
    11. Matthew Lockwood, 2022. "Policy feedback and institutional context in energy transitions," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(3), pages 487-507, September.
    12. Paul Fesenfeld, Lukas & Maier, Maiken & Brazzola, Nicoletta & Stolz, Niklas & Sun, Yixian & Kachi, Aya, 2023. "How information, social norms, and experience with novel meat substitutes can create positive political feedback and demand-side policy change," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    13. Meckling, Jonas & Nahm, Jonas, 2019. "The politics of technology bans: Industrial policy competition and green goals for the auto industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 470-479.
    14. Matthew C. Nowlin, 2022. "Who should “do more” about climate change? Cultural theory, polycentricity, and public support for climate change actions across actors and governments," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(4), pages 468-485, July.
    15. Eicke, Laima & Weko, Silvia, 2022. "Does green growth foster green policies? Value chain upgrading and feedback mechanisms on renewable energy policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    16. Aditya Sinha & Aranya Venkatesh & Katherine Jordan & Cameron Wade & Hadi Eshraghi & Anderson R. Queiroz & Paulina Jaramillo & Jeremiah X. Johnson, 2024. "Diverse decarbonization pathways under near cost-optimal futures," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, December.
    17. Rohan Best & Paul J. Burke, 2020. "Energy mix persistence and the effect of carbon pricing," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(3), pages 555-574, July.
    18. Mattauch, Linus & Hepburn, Cameron & Stern, Nicholas, 2018. "Pigou pushes preferences: decarbonisation and endogenous values," INET Oxford Working Papers 2018-16, Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford.
    19. Gokul Iyer & Alicia Zhao & Adriana Bryant & John Bistline & Geoffrey Blanford & Ryna Cui & Allen A. Fawcett & Rachel Goldstein & Amanda Levin & Megan Mahajan & Haewon McJeon & Robbie Orvis & Nathan Hu, 2025. "A multi-model study to inform the United States’ 2035 NDC," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-12, December.
    20. Diogo Ferraz & Fernanda P. S. Falguera & Enzo B. Mariano & Dominik Hartmann, 2021. "Linking Economic Complexity, Diversification, and Industrial Policy with Sustainable Development: A Structured Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-29, January.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2304.14960. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.