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.

Sequencing to ratchet up climate policy stringency

Abstract

The Paris Agreement formulates the goal of GHG neutrality in the second half of this century. Given that Nationally Determined Contributions are as yet insufficient, the question is through which policies can this goal be realized? Identifying policy pathways to ratchet up stringency is instrumental, but little guidance is available. We propose a policy sequencing framework and substantiate it using the cases of Germany and California. Its core elements are policy options to overcome barriers to stringency over time. Such sequencing can advance policy design and hopefully reconcile the controversy between first-best and second-best approaches.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Increasing policy stringency in Germany and California.
Fig. 2: Sequencing to overcome barriers to stringency.

References

  1. 1.

    Meckling, J., Kelsey, N., Biber, E. & Zysman, J. Winning coalitions for climate policy. Science 349, 1170–1171 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Meckling, J., Sterner, T. & Wagner, G. Policy sequencing toward decarbonization. Nat. Energy 2, 918–922 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Beh, E. H. Y., Maier, H. R. & Dandy, G. C. Scenario driven optimal sequencing under deep uncertainty. Environ. Model. Softw. 68, 181–195 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Asturias, J., Hur, S., Kehoe, T. J. & Ruhl, K. J. The interaction and sequencing of policy reforms. J. Econ. Dynam. Contr. 72, 45–66 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Flyvbjerg, B. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual. Inq. 12, 219–245 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    North, D. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1990).

  7. 7.

    Arthur, W. B. Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy (Univ. Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1994).

  8. 8.

    Pierson, P. When effect becomes cause: policy feedback and political change. World Polit. 45, 595–628 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Pierson, P. Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 94, 251–267 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Pierson, P. Not just what, but when: timing and sequence in political processes. Stud. Am. Polit. Dev. 14, 72–92 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Mahoney, J. Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory Soc. 29, 507–548 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Howlett, M. & Rayner, J. Understanding the historical turn in the policy sciences: a critique of stochastic, narrative, path dependency and process-sequencing models of policy-making over time. Policy Sci. 39, 1–18 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Howlett, M. Process sequencing policy dynamics: beyond homeostasis and path dependency. J. Public Policy 29, 241–262 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Baumgartner, F. R. & Jones, B. D. Agendas and Instability in American Politics (Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S. & Auld, G. Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy Sci. 45, 123–152 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Taeihagh, A., Givoni, M. & Bañares-Alcántara, R. Which policy first? a network-centric approach for the analysis and ranking of policy measures. Environ. Plan. B 40, 595–616 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    David, P. A. Clio and the economics of QWERTY. Am. Econ. Rev. 75, 332–337 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Daugbjerg, C. in Routledge Handbook of Public Policy (eds Araral, E. et al.) 473–483 (Routledge, Oxford, 2012).

  19. 19.

    Unruh, G. Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 28, 817–830 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Unruh, G. Escaping carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 30, 317–325 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Urpelainen, J. A model of dynamic climate governance: dream big, win small. Int. Environ. Agreem. Polit. Law Econ. 13, 107–125 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Jordan, A. & Matt, E. Designing policies that intentionally stick: policy feedback in a changing climate. Policy Sci. 47, 227–247 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Biber, E., Kelsey, N. & Meckling, J. The political economy of decarbonization: a research agenda. Brooklyn Law Rev. 82, 605–643 (2017).

  25. 25.

    Schmidt, T. S. & Sewerin, S. Technology as a driver of climate and energy politics. Nat. Energy 2, 17084 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Bernstein, S. & Hoffmann, M. The politics of decarbonization and the catalytic impact of subnational climate experiments. Policy Sci. 51, 189–211 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Lipsey, R. G. & Lancaster, K. The general theory of second best. Rev. Econ. Stud. 24, 11–32 (1956).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Yi, H. & Feiock, R. C. Policy tool interactions and the adoption of state renewable portfolio standards. Rev. Policy Res. 29, 193–206 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Sebenius, J. K. Negotiation arithmetic: adding and subtracting issues and parties. Int. Organ. 37, 281–316 (1983).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Sterner, T. Policy Instruments for Environmental and Natural Resource Management (RFF, 2012).

  31. 31.

    Jaffe, A. B., Newell, R. G. & Stavins, R. A tale of two market failures: technology and environmental policy. Ecol. Econ. 54, 164–174 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Kalkuhl, M., Edenhofer, O. & Lessmann, K. Learning or lock-in: optimal technology policies to support mitigation. Resour. Energy Econ. 34, 1–23 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Acemoglu, D., Aghion, P., Bursztyn, L. & Hemous, D. The environment and directed technical change. Am. Econ. Rev. 102, 131–166 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Fischer, C. & Newell, R. G. Environmental and technology policies for climate mitigation. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 55, 142–162 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Goulder, L. H. & Parry, I. W. H. Instrument choice in environmental policy. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 2, 152–174 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Sijm, J. The interaction between the EU emissions trading scheme and national energy policies. Clim. Policy 5, 79–96 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Gillingham, K. & Sweeney, J. in Harnessing Renewable Energy in Electric Power Systems: Theory, Practice, Policy (eds Moselle, B. et al.) 69–91 (RFF, New York, 2010).

  38. 38.

    Goulder, L. H., Hafstead, M. A. C. & Williams, R. C. General equilibrium impacts of a federal clean energy standard. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 8, 186–218 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Burtraw, D. The Fertile Middle Ground for California’s Climate Policy Policy Brief No. 16–05 (Resources for the Future, 2016).

  40. 40.

    Pahle, M. & Schweizerhof, H. Time for tough love: towards gradual risk transfer to renewables in Germany. Econ. Energy Environ. Policy 5, 1–17 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    del Río González, P. The interaction between emissions trading and renewable electricity support schemes. an overview of the literature. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 12, 1363–1390 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Krause, R. M., Yi, H. & Feiock, R. C. Applying policy termination theory to the abandonment of climate protection initiatives by U. S. local governments: abandonment of climate protection initiatives. Policy Stud. J. 44, 176–195 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Karneyeva, Y. & Wüstenhagen, R. Solar feed-in tariffs in a post-grid parity world: the role of risk, investor diversity and business models. Energy Policy 106, 445–456 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Jacobsson, S. & Lauber, V. The politics and policy of energy system transformation—explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy technology. Energy Policy 34, 256–276 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Hanemann, M. California’s new greenhouse gas laws. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 2, 114–129 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change (CARB, 2008).

  47. 47.

    The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update (CARB, 2017).

  48. 48.

    Oye, K. A. & Maxwell, J. H. 8. Self-interest and environmental management. J. Theor. Polit. 6, 593–624 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Wilson, J. Q. The Politics of Regulation (Basic Books, New York, 1980).

  50. 50.

    Bettzüge, M. O. Zwischen rhetorik und realität–perspektiven der deutschen energiepolitik. Energie.Tagesfrag. 66(10), 8–13 (2016).

  51. 51.

    Jenkins, J. D. Political economy constraints on carbon pricing policies: what are the implications for economic efficiency, environmental efficacy, and climate policy design? Energy Policy 69, 467–477 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Burtraw, D. & Sekar, S. Two world views on carbon revenues. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 4, 110–120 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Carattini, S., Carvalho, M. & Fankhauser, S. Overcoming public resistance to carbon taxes. WIREs Clim. Change 9, e531 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Rogge, K. S., Kern, F. & Howlett, M. Conceptual and empirical advances in analysing policy mixes for energy transitions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 33, 1–10 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Frondel, M., Sommer, S. & Vance, C. The burden of Germany’s energy transition: an empirical analysis of distributional effects. Econ. Anal. Policy 45, 89–99 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Frondel, M. Die verteilung der kosten des ausbaus der erneuerbaren: eine qualitative bewertung der meistdiskutierten vorschläge. Z. Für Energie. 42, 103–116 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Lauber, V. & Mez, L. Renewable electricity policy in Germany, 1974 to 2005. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 26, 105–120 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Stenzel, T. & Frenzel, A. Regulating technological change—the strategic reactions of utility companies towards subsidy policies in the German, Spanish and UK electricity markets. Energy Policy 36, 2645–2657 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Pahle, M., Pachauri, S. & Steinbacher, K. Can the green economy deliver it all? experiences of renewable energy policies with socio-economic objectives. Appl. Energy 179, 1331–1341 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Kelsey, N., Madden, A., Mandel, J. & Randolph, S. in Can Green Sustain Growth? From the Religion to the Reality of Sustainable Prosperity (eds Zysman, J. & Huberty, M.) Ch. 8 (Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, 2013).

  61. 61.

    Biber, E. Cultivating a green political landscape: lessons for climate change policy from the defeat of California’s proposition 23. Vanderbilt Law Rev. 66, 399–462 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Allocating Emissions Allowances Under a California Cap-and-Trade Program (EAAC, 2010).

  63. 63.

    Jacobsen, M. R. & van Benthem, A. A. Vehicle scrappage and gasoline policy. Am. Econ. Rev. 105, 1312–1338 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Rafaty, R. Perceptions of corruption, political distrust, and the weakening of climate policy. Glob. Environ. Polit. 18, 106–129 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Brunner, S., Flachsland, C. & Marschinski, R. Credible commitment in carbon policy. Clim. Policy 12, 255–271 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Ohlhorst, D. Windenergie in Deutschland: Konstellationen, Dynamiken und Regulierungspotenziale im Innovationsprozess (VS Research, Wiesbaden, 2009).

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Carraro, C. & Siniscalco, D. Strategies for the international protection of the environment. J. Public Econ. 52, 309–328 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Barrett, S. Environment and Statecraft: The Strategy of Environmental Treaty-Making (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2005).

  69. 69.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Victor, D. Global Warming Gridlock: Creating More Effective Strategies for Protecting the Planet (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2011).

  71. 71.

    Burtraw, D., Palmer, K. L., Munnings, C., Weber, P. & Woeman, M. Linking by Degrees: Incremental Alignment of Cap-and-Trade Markets Discussion Paper No. 13–04 (Resources for the Future, 2013).

  72. 72.

    Metcalf, G. E. & Weisbach, D. Linking policies when tastes differ: global climate policy in a heterogeneous world. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 6, 110–129 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Shipan, C. R. & Volden, C. The mechanisms of policy diffusion. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 52, 840–857 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Bernstein, S. & Cashore, B. Complex global governance and domestic policies: four pathways of influence. Int. Aff. 88, 585–604 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Keohane, N., Petsonk, A. & Hanafi, A. Toward a club of carbon markets. Climatic Change 144, 81–95 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Burtraw, D., Palmer, K., Paul, A. & Pan, S. A proximate mirror: greenhouse gas rules and strategic behavior under the US clean air act. Environ. Resour. Econ. 62, 217–241 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Steinbacher, K. & Pahle, M. Leadership and the Energiewende: German leadership by diffusion. Glob. Environ. Polit. 16, 70–89 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Erfolgreicher Klimaschutz braucht Wirksame CO 2 -Bepreisung (BDI, 2016); https://go.nature.com/2NVCHbH

  79. 79.

    Schreurs, M. A. & Tiberghien, Y. Multi-level reinforcement: explaining European Union leadership in climate change mitigation. Glob. Environ. Polit. 7, 19–46 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Vogel, D. Trading Up: Consumer and Environmental Regulation in a Global Economy (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1997).

  81. 81.

    Carlson, A. Iterative federalism and climate change. Northw. Univ. Law Rev. 103, 1097–1161 (2009).

  82. 82.

    Rabe, B. in The Future of U. S. Energy Policy: Lessons from the Clean Air Act (eds Carlson, A. & Burtraw, D.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, in the press).

  83. 83.

    Wiseman, H. in The Future of U. S. Energy Policy: Lessons from the Clean Air Act (eds Carlson, A. & Burtraw, D.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, in the press).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Stiftung Mercator Foundation and Climate Works under the research project AHEAD. The authors thank all participants of the AHEAD project workshops in Berlin and Berkeley for helpful comments, as well as numerous stakeholders from governments, regulatory agencies, business and academia who informed this research via personal conversations.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Pahle.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pahle, M., Burtraw, D., Flachsland, C. et al. Sequencing to ratchet up climate policy stringency. Nature Clim Change 8, 861–867 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0287-6

Download citation

Further reading

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