Policy sequencing toward decarbonization

A Publisher Correction to this article was published on 19 February 2018

This article has been updated

Abstract

Many economists have long held that carbon pricing—either through a carbon tax or cap-and-trade—is the most cost-effective way to decarbonize energy systems, along with subsidies for basic research and development. Meanwhile, green innovation and industrial policies aimed at fostering low-carbon energy technologies have proliferated widely. Most of these predate direct carbon pricing. Low-carbon leaders such as California and the European Union (EU) have followed a distinct policy sequence that helps overcome some of the political challenges facing low-carbon policy by building economic interest groups in support of decarbonization and reducing the cost of technologies required for emissions reductions. However, while politically effective, this policy pathway faces significant challenges to environmental and cost effectiveness, including excess rent capture and lock-in. Here we discuss options for addressing these challenges under political constraints. As countries move toward deeper emissions cuts, combining and sequencing policies will prove critical to avoid environmental, economic, and political dead-ends in decarbonizing energy systems.

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: California and the EU have moved through three stages in developing low-carbon policies.

Change history

  • 19 February 2018

    In the PDF version of this Perspective originally published, the asterisk indicating that the author Gernot Wagner is one of the corresponding authors was omitted. This has now been corrected.

References

  1. 1.

    Tietenberg, T.  H. Reflections—carbon pricing in practice. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 7, 313–329 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Acemoglu, D., Aghion, P., Bursztyn, L. & Hemous, D. The Environment and Directed Technical Change FEEM Working Paper No. 93.2010 https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1668575 (2010).

  3. 3.

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

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Acemoglu, D., Akcigit, U., Hanley, D. & Kerr, W. Transition to clean technology. J. Polit. Econ. 124, 52–104 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Wagner, G. et al. Energy policy: Push renewables to spur carbon pricing. Nature 525, 27–29 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Meckling, J., Kelsey, N., Biber, E. & Zysman, J. Winning coalitions for climate policy: green industrial policy builds support for carbon regulation. Science 349, 1170–1171 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Rodrik, D. Green industrial policy. Ox. Rev. Econ. Policy 30, 469–491 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Jaffe, A.  B., Newell, R.  G. & Stavins, R.  N. Environmental policy and technological change. Environ. Res. Econ. 22, 41–70 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Barbier, E.  B. Building the green economy. Canadian Public Policy 42, S1–S9 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2015 (World Bank, Washington DC, 2015).

  11. 11.

    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 

  12. 12.

    Qi, Y. & Wu, T. The politics of climate change in China. WIREs Clim. Change 4, 301–313 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Schmitz, H., Johnson, O. & Altenburg, T. Rent management—the heart of green industrial policy. New Polit. Econ. https://doi.org/cdtc (2015).

  14. 14.

    Kelsey, S. M. The Green Spiral: Policy–Industry Feedback and the Success of International Environmental Negotiation. PhD Thesis, Univ. California Berkeley (2014).

  15. 15.

    Keohane, R.  O. The global politics of climate change: challenge for political science. PS Polit. Sci. Polit. 48, 19–26 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Nahm, J. Renewable futures and industrial legacies: wind and solar sectors in China, Germany, and the United States. Business Polit. 19, 68–106 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Kim, E. S., Yang, J. & Urpelainen, J. Does power sector regulation promote or discourage renewable energy policy? Evidence from the States, 1991–2012. Rev. Policy Res. 33, 22–50 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Borenstein, S. & Bushnell, J. The US electricity industry after 20 years of restructuring. Ann. Rev. Econ. 7, 437–463 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Lockwood, M., Kuzemko, C., Mitchell, C. & Hoggett, R. Historical institutionalism and the politics of sustainable energy transitions: A research agenda. Environ. Planning C Gov. Policy 35, 312–333 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Jenkins, J.  D. & Karplus, V.  J. Carbon Pricing Under Binding Political Constraints (United Nations University, Helsinki, 2016).

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Revolution Now: The Future Arrives for Five Clean Energy Technologies (Department of Energy, Washington DC, 2015).

  23. 23.

    van Benthem, A., Gillingham, K. & Sweeney, J. Learning-by-doing and the optimal solar policy in California. Energy J. 29, 131–151 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    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 

  25. 25.

    Aldy, J.  E. & Pizer, W.  A. The competitiveness impacts of climate change mitigation policies. J. Assoc. Environ. Res. Econ. 2, 565–595 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Gawel, E., Strunz, S. & Lehmann, P. A public choice view on the climate and energy policy mix in the EU — How do the emissions trading scheme and support for renewable energies interact? Energy Policy 64, 175–182 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Morgan, M.  G. Opinion: Climate policy needs more than muddling. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 2322–2324 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Sachs, J. D. et al. Why Climate Policy Needs Long-Term Deep Decarbonization Pathways (United Nations, 2015).

  29. 29.

    Kimura, O. Japanese Top Runner Approach for Energy Efficiency Standards (Socio-Economic Research Centre, Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, 2010).

  30. 30.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Sivaram, V. Ensuring Tesla doesn’t out the batteries of the future. Forbes (30 April 2015).

  32. 32.

    Zysman, J. & Huberty, M. Can Green Sustain Growth? (Stanford Business Books, 2014).

  33. 33.

    del Río, P. & Mir-Artigues, P. Support for solar PV deployment in Spain: Some policy lessons. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 16, 5557–5566 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Stokes, L. C. Power Politics: Renewable Energy Policy Change in US States. Dissertation, MIT (2015).

  35. 35.

    Callaway, D., Fowlie, M. & McCormick, G. Location, Location, Location: The Variable Value of Renewable Energy and Demand-Side Efficiency Resources (UC Berkeley, CA, 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Simoes, S., Nijs, W., Ruiz, P., Sgobbi, A. & Thiel, C. Comparing policy routes for low-carbon power technology deployment in EU — an energy system analysis. Energy Policy 101, 353–365 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Mitchell, C. Momentum is increasing towards a flexible electricity system based on renewables. Nat. Energy 1, 15030 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Helm, D. The European framework for energy and climate policies. Energy Policy 64, 29–35 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Böhringer, C. & Rosendahl, K.  E. Green promotes the dirtiest: on the interaction between black and green quotas in energy markets. J. Regulatory Econ 37, 316–325 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Fischer, C. & Preonas, L. Combining Policies for Renewable Energy: Is the Whole Less than the Sum of Its Parts? Discussion paper 10–19 (2010).

  41. 41.

    Rabe, B.  G. The durability of carbon cap-and-trade policy. Governance 29, 103–119 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Houle, D., Lachapelle, E. & Purdon, M. Comparative politics of sub-federal cap-and-trade: Implementing the Western Climate Initiative. Global Environ. Pol. 15, 49–73 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Hammar, H., Löfgren, A. & Sterner, T. Political economy obstacles to fuel taxation. Energy J. 25, 1–17 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Huberty, M. Energy Systems Transformation and the Political Economy of Climate Change. PhD Thesis, Univ. California Berkeley (2013).

  45. 45.

    Knox-Hayes, J. Negotiating climate legislation: Policy path dependence and coalition stabilization. Regulation Gov. 6, 545–567 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Mackinder, E. Pro-environment groups outmatched, outspent in battle over climate change legislation. OpenSecrets (23 August 2010).

  47. 47.

    Sullivan, C. & Kahn, D. Voters Reject 2-Sided Assault on Climate Law. ClimateWire (3 November 2010).

  48. 48.

    Meckling, J. Carbon Coalitions: Business, Climate Politics, and the Rise of Emissions Trading (MIT Press, 2011).

  49. 49.

    Ciplet, D., Roberts, J. T. & Khan, M. R. Power in a Warming World (MIT Press, 2015).

  50. 50.

    Victor, D. G. Global Warming Gridlock (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2011).

  51. 51.

    Markussen, P. & Svendsen, G.  T. Industry lobbying and the political economy of GHG trade in the European Union. Energy Policy 33, 245–255 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Cook, B.  J. Arenas of power in climate change policymaking. Policy Studies J. 38, 465–486 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Harrison, K. A tale of two taxes: the fate of environmental tax reform in Canada. Rev. Policy Res. 29, 383–407 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Murray, B.  C. & Maniloff, P.  T. Why have greenhouse emissions in RGGI states declined? An econometric attribution to economic, energy market, and policy factors. Energy Econ. 51, 581–589 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Calel, R. & Dechezleprêtre, A. Environmental policy and directed technological change: Evidence from the European carbon market. Rev. Econ. Stat. 98, 173–191 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Wettestad, J. & Rescuing, E. U. emissions trading: mission impossible? Global Environ. Pol. 14, 64–81 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Duff, D.  G. Carbon taxation in British Columbia. Vermont J. Environ. Law 10, 87–107 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Raymond, L. Reclaiming the Atmospheric Commons: The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and a New Model of Emissions Trading (MIT Press, 2016).

  59. 59.

    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 

  60. 60.

    Partnership for Market Readiness and International Carbon Action Partnership. Emissions Trading in Practice: a Handbook on Design and Implementation (World Bank, Washington, DC, 2016).

    Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Sterner, T. Fuel taxes: An important instrument for climate policy. Energy Policy 25, 3194–3202 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Williams, J.  H. et al. The technology path to deep greenhouse gas emissions cuts by 2050: the pivotal role of electricity. Science 335, 53–59 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    World Bank, Ecofys Carbon Pricing Watch 2016 (Washington DC, 2016).

  64. 64.

    Barbier, E.  B. Is green growth relevant for poor economies? Res. Energy Econ. 45, 178–191 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    World Energy Outlook (International Energy Agency, Paris, 2015).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank E. Barbier, D. Burtraw, O. Edenhofer, B. Keohane, C. Mitchell, L. Stokes and participants in the climate policy workshop at the University of Pittsburgh for discussions and feedback. We are grateful for research assistance from D. Willis. Thomas Sterner thanks Mistra Carbon Exit for funding.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jonas Meckling or Gernot Wagner.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Additional information

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

A correction to this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-018-0089-0.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Meckling, J., Sterner, T. & Wagner, G. Policy sequencing toward decarbonization. Nat Energy 2, 918–922 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-017-0025-8

Download citation

Further reading

Search

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