Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Climate negotiators’ and scientists’ assessments of the climate negotiations

Nature Climate Change volume 7, pages 437–442 (2017)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Climate negotiation outcomes are difficult to evaluate objectively because there are no clear reference scenarios. Subjective assessments from those directly involved in the negotiations are particularly important, as this may influence strategy and future negotiation participation. Here we analyse the perceived success of the climate negotiations in a sample of 656 experts involved in international climate policy. Respondents were pessimistic when asked for specific assessments of the current approach centred on voluntary pledges, but were more optimistic when asked for general assessments of the outcomes and usefulness of the climate negotiations. Individuals who were more involved in the negotiation process tended to be more optimistic, especially in terms of general assessments. Our results indicate that two reinforcing effects are at work: a high degree of involvement changes individuals’ perceptions and more optimistic individuals are more inclined to remain involved in the negotiations.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Overview of outcomes that were evaluated.
Figure 2: The average estimated probability of being optimistic based on the number of conferences attended as party.
Figure 3: The average estimated probability of being optimistic in a subsample who attended two or three COPs as party.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aldy, J. E. & Stavins, R. N. Architectures for Agreement: Addressing Global Climate Change in the Post-Kyoto World (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Barrett, S. Environment and Statecraft: The Strategy of Environmental Treaty-Making (Oxford Univ. Press, 2003).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Monbiot, G. Grand promises of Paris climate deal undermined by squalid retrenchments. The Guardian (12 December 2015); http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2015/dec/12/paris-climate-deal-governments-fossil-fuels

    Google Scholar 

  4. Young, O. R. Effectiveness of international environmental regimes: existing knowledge, cutting-edge themes, and research strategies. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 19853–19860 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Lange, A., Löschel, A., Vogt, C. & Ziegler, A. On the self-interested use of equity in international climate negotiations. Eur. Econ. Rev. 54, 359–375 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lange, A., Vogt, C. & Ziegler, A. On the importance of equity in international climate policy: an empirical analysis. Energy Econ. 29, 545–562 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kesternich, M. Minimum participation rules in international environmental agreements: empirical evidence from a survey among delegates in international climate negotiations. Appl. Econ. 48, 1047–1065 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Karlsson, C., Parker, C., Hjerpe, M. & Linnér, B. Looking for leaders: perceptions of climate change leadership among climate change negotiation participants. Glob. Environ. Polit. 11, 89–107 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Saul, U. & Seidel, C. Does leadership promote cooperation in climate change mitigation policy? Clim. Policy 11, 901–921 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bailer, S. Strategy in the climate change negotiations: do democracies negotiate differently? Clim. Policy 12, 534–551 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Weiler, F. Determinants of bargaining success in the climate change negotiations. Clim. Policy 12, 552–574 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dannenberg, A., Sturm, B. & Vogt, C. Do equity preferences matter for climate negotiators? An experimental investigation. Environ. Resour. Econ. 47, 91–109 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hafner-Burton, E. M., LeVeck, B. L., Victor, D. G. & Fowler, J. H. Decision maker preferences for international legal cooperation. Int. Organ. 68, 845–876 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. LeVeck, B. L., Hughes, D. A., Fowler, J. H., Hafner-Burton, E. & Victor, D. G. The role of self-interest in elite bargaining. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 18536–18541 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Bosetti, V. et al. COP21 climate negotiators’ responses to climate model forecasts. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 185–189 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hjerpe, M. & Linnér, B. Functions of COP side-events in climate-change governance. Clim. Policy 10, 167–180 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Schroeder, H. & Lovell, H. The role of non-nation-state actors and side events in the international climate negotiations. Clim. Policy 12, 23–37 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Muñoz Cabré, M. Issue-linkages to climate change measured through NGO participation in the UNFCCC. Glob. Environ. Polit. 11, 10–22 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hale, T. & Roger, C. Orchestration and transnational climate governance. Rev. Int. Organ. 9, 59–82 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Betsill, M. et al. Building productive links between the UNFCCC and the broader global climate governance landscape. Glob. Environ. Polit. 15, 1–10 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hanegraaff, M. Transnational advocacy over time: business and NGO mobilization at UN climate summits. Glob. Environ. Polit. 15, 83–104 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Nasiritousi, N., Hjerpe, M. & Linnér, B. O. The roles of non-state actors in climate change governance: understanding agency through governance profiles. Int. Environ. Agreements 16, 109–126 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Schroeder, H., Boykoff, M. T. & Spiers, L. Equity and state representations in climate negotiations. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 834–836 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. UNFCCC Synthesis Report on the Aggregate Effect of the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions FCCC/CP/2015/7 (2015); http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/07.pdf

  25. Jeffrey, L. et al. 2.7 °C is Not Enough—We Can Get Lower (Climate Action Tracker Briefing, 2015); http://climateactiontracker.org/assets/publications/briefing_papers/CAT_Temp_Update_COP21.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  26. Averchenkova, A. & Bassi, S. Beyond the Targets: Assessing the Political Credibility of Pledges for the Paris Agreement (Policy brief of the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, February 2016); http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/publication/beyond-the_targets

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ostrom, E. Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Glob. Environ. Change 20, 550–557 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Keohane, R. O. & Victor, D. G. The regime complex for climate change. Perspect. Polit. 9, 7–23 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Keohane, R. O. & Victor, D. G. Cooperation and discord in global climate policy. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 570–575 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Falkner, R. The Paris Agreement and the new logic of international climate politics. Int. Affairs 92, 1107–1125 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Heider, F. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations (Wiley, 1958).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  32. Baumeister, R. F. in The Handbook of Social Psychology (eds Gilbert, D. T., Fiske, S. T. & Lindzey, G.) 680–740 (McGraw-Hill, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Campbell, W. K. & Sedikides, C. Self-threat magnifies the self-serving bias: a meta-analytic integration. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 3, 23–43 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Mezulis, A. H., Abramson, L. Y., Hyde, J. S. & Hankin, B. L. Is there a universal positivity bias in attributions? A meta-analytic review of individual, developmental, and cultural differences in the self-serving attributional bias. Psychol. Bull. 130, 711–747 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Tavoni, A., Dannenberg, A., Kallis, G. & Löschel, A. Inequality, communication, and the avoidance of disastrous climate change in a public goods game. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 11825–11829 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Dunning, D., Meyerowitz, J. A. & Holzberg, A. D. Ambiguity and self-evaluation: the role of idiosyncratic trait definitions in self-serving assessments of ability. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 57, 1082–1090 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Nordhaus, W. Climate clubs: overcoming free-riding in international climate policy. Am. Econ. Rev. 105, 1339–1370 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Grasso, M. & Roberts, J. T. A compromise to break the climate impasse. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 543–549 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Vihma, A. Climate of consensus: managing decision making in the UN climate change negotiations. Rev. Eur. Commun. Int. Environ. Law 24, 58–68 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Eckersley, R. Moving forward in the climate negotiations: multilateralism or minilateralism? Glob. Environ. Polit. 12, 24–42 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Cole, D. H. Advantages of a polycentric approach to climate change policy. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 114–118 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Hjerpe, M. & Nasiritousi, N. Views on alternative forums for effectively tackling climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 864–868 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Falkner, R. International negotiations: towards minilateralism. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 805–806 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Barrett, S. & Dannenberg, A. Tipping versus cooperating to supply a public good. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvw022 (2017).

  45. Kahneman, D. Thinking, Fast and Slow (Macmillan, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The work has been supported by the European Union (EU) Horizon 2020 Program, action ERC-2014-STG, Project HUCO, grant number 636746. A.T. acknowledges financial support by the Enel Foundation Grant ‘Climate Negotiations’ (RGI-U885). A.T. is supported by the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, which is funded by the UK Economic and Social Research Council.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, University of Kassel, Nora-Platiel-Straße 4, 34109 Kassel, Germany

    Astrid Dannenberg & Sonja Zitzelsberger

  2. Department of Economics, University of Gothenburg, Box 640, 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden

    Astrid Dannenberg

  3. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics, London WC2A 2AE, UK

    Alessandro Tavoni

Authors
  1. Astrid Dannenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sonja Zitzelsberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alessandro Tavoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.D. and A.T. designed research; A.D. and S.Z. analysed data; A.D., S.Z. and A.T. wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Astrid Dannenberg.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information (PDF 1606 kb)

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information (XLSX 164 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dannenberg, A., Zitzelsberger, S. & Tavoni, A. Climate negotiators’ and scientists’ assessments of the climate negotiations. Nature Clim Change 7, 437–442 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3288

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3288

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing