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.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Political strategies for climate and environmental solutions

Nature Sustainability volume 6, pages 742–751 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Many of the barriers to progress in addressing environmental problems, such as climate change, are political. We argue that politics should not be seen only as a constraint but be recognized as a target of intervention to advance environmental solutions. We use the example of climate change to illustrate how insight into politics can help policymakers craft strategies to address three gaps: the ambition gap, the implementation gap and the international action gap. Focusing on politically effective choices that are feasible today and have the potential to ease political barriers to future policy action can broaden the solution space.

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

Fig. 1: Climate policy ambition of countries falls short of action needed to avoid dangerous climate change.
Fig. 2: Spectrum of opposition to climate policy instruments.
Fig. 3: Cost of onshore wind power and solar PV over time, with key policy developments overlaid.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Clark, W. C. & Harley, A. G. Sustainability science: towards a synthesis. Annu. Rev. Environ. Res. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012420-043621 (2020).

  2. Emissions Gap Report 2021: The Heat is On: A World of Climate Promises Not Yet Delivered (UNEP, 2021).

  3. Aklin, M. & Mildenberger, M. Prisoners of the wrong dilemma: why distributive conflict, not collective action, characterizes the politics of climate change. Glob. Environ. Politics 20, 4–27 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Colgan, J. D., Green, J. F. & Hale, T. N. Asset revaluation and the existential politics of climate change. Int. Organ. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818320000296 (2020). This paper conceptualizes the distributive politics of climate change, identifying key lines of conflict between winners and losers.

  5. Genovese, F. Sectors, pollution, and trade: how industrial interests shape domestic positions on global climate agreements. Int. Stud. Q. 63, 819–836 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kennard, A. The enemy of my enemy: when firms support climate change regulation. Int. Organ. 74, 187–221 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cory, J., Lerner, M. & Osgood, I. Supply chain linkages and the extended carbon coalition. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 65, 69–87 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Green, J., Hadden, J., Hale, T. & Mahdavi, P. Transition, hedge, or resist? Understanding political and economic behavior toward decarbonization in the oil and gas industry. Rev. Int. Polit. Econ. 29, 2036–2063 (2022).

  9. Aklin, M. & Urpelainen, J. Renewables: The Politics of a Global Energy Transition (MIT Press, 2018).

  10. Meckling, J. Oppose, support, or hedge? Distributional effects, regulatory pressure, and business strategy in environmental politics. Glob. Environ. Politics 15, 19–37 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Culhane, T., Hall, G. & Roberts, J. T. Who delays climate action? Interest groups and coalitions in state legislative struggles in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 79, 102114 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mildenberger, M. Carbon Captured: How Business and Labor Control Climate Politics (MIT Press, 2020).

  13. Mahdavi, P., Martinez-Alvarez, C. B. & Ross, M. L. Why do governments tax or subsidize fossil fuels. J. Politics 84, 2123–2139 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Meckling, J. & Allan, B. B. The evolution of ideas in global climate policy. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 434–438 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bayer, P. & Urpelainen, J. It is all about political incentives: democracy and the renewable feed-in tariff. J. Politics 78, 603–619 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  18. Dubash, N. K., Khosla, R., Kelkar, U. & Lele, S. India and climate change: evolving ideas and increasing policy engagement. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 43, 395–424 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rabe, B. G. Can We Price Carbon? (MIT Press, 2018). Drawing on cases from North America, Europe and Asia, this book examines the feasibility and durability of carbon pricing.

  20. Harrison, K. The Political Economy of British Columbia’s Carbon Tax Report No. 19970900 (OECD, 2013).

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

  22. Klenert, D. et al. Making carbon pricing work for citizens. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 669–677 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Gaikwad, N., Genovese, F. & Tingley, D. Creating climate coalitions: mass preferences for compensating vulnerability in the world’s two largest democracies. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055422000223 (2022).

  24. Mildenberger, M., Lachapelle, E., Harrison, K. & Stadelmann-Steffen, I. Limited impacts of carbon tax rebate programmes on public support for carbon pricing. Nat. Clim. Change 12, 141–147 (2022).

  25. Egan, P. J. & Mullin, M. Climate change: US public opinion. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 20, 209–227 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Fisher, D. R. The broader importance of #FridaysForFuture. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 430–431 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Fisher, D. R. & Nasrin, S. Climate activism and its effects. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 12, e683 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Feldman, L. & Hart, P. S. Climate change as a polarizing cue: framing effects on public support for low-carbon energy policies. Glob. Environ. Change 51, 54–66 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Bättig, M. B. & Bernauer, T. National institutions and global public goods: are democracies more cooperative in climate change policy? Int. Organ. 63, 281–308 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Finnegan, J. J. Changing prices in a changing climate: electoral competition and fossil fuel taxation. Comp. Polit. Stud. https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140221141853 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Aldrich, D., Lipscy, P. Y. & McCarthy, M. M. Japan’s opportunity to lead. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 492–492 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Lachapelle, E. & Paterson, M. Drivers of national climate policy. Clim. Policy 13, 547–571 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Meckling, J. & Nahm, J. When do states disrupt industries? Electric cars in Germany and the United States. Rev. Int. Polit. Econ. 25, 505–529 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Finnegan, J. J. Institutions, climate change, and the foundations of long-term policymaking. Comp. Polit. Stud. 55, 1198–1235 (2022). This article shows that electoral rules and state–business relations affect the stringency of national climate policies.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Meckling, J. & Nahm, J. Strategic state capacity: how states counter opposition to climate policy. Comp. Polit. Stud. 55, 493–523 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Dubash, N. K. et al. National climate institutions complement targets and policies. Science 374, 690–693 (2021).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Guy, J., Shears, E. & Meckling, J. National models of climate governance among major emitters. Nat. Clim. Change 13, 189–195 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Lockwood, M. A hard Act to follow? The evolution and performance of UK climate governance. Environ. Politics 30, 26–48 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Climate Action Tracker: Warming Projections Global Update (New Climate Institute, Ecofys & Climate Analytics, 2018).

  40. Rosenbloom, D., Meadowcroft, J. & Cashore, B. Stability and climate policy? Harnessing insights on path dependence, policy feedback, and transition pathways. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 50, 168–178 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Jordan, A. J. & Moore, B. Durable by Design? Policy Feedback in a Changing Climate (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2020). This book identifies design features of policies that unleash positive feedback and build climate policy support, drawing on cases from the EU.

  42. Stokes, L. C. Short Circuiting Policy: Interest Groups and the Battle Over Clean Energy and Climate Policy in the American States (Oxford Univ. Press, 2020).

  43. Stokes, L. C. Electoral backlash against climate policy: a natural experiment on retrospective voting and local resistance to public policy. Am. J. Polit. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12220 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Stefes, C. H. & Hager, C. Resistance to energy transitions. Rev. Policy Res. 37, 286–291 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Hochstetler, K. Political Economies of Energy Transition: Wind and Solar Power in Brazil and South Africa (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2020). This book examines the politics of clean energy transitions in developing countries, showing how climate concerns intersect with economic considerations.

  46. Downie, C. Fighting for King Coal’s crown: business actors in the US coal and utility industries. Glob. Environ. Politics 17, 21–39 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Newell, P. Power Shift: The Global Political Economy of Energy Transitions (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).

  48. Breetz, H., Mildenberger, M. & Stokes, L. The political logics of clean energy transitions. Bus. Politics 20, 492–522 (2018). This paper shows how the political challenges change over the course of the diffusion of clean technologies.

    Google Scholar 

  49. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Aklin, M. & Urpelainen, J. Political competition, path dependence, and the strategy of sustainable energy transitions. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 57, 643–658 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Jacobs, A. M. Governing for the Long Term: Democracy and the Politics of Investment (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2011).

  52. Biber, E. Cultivating a green political landscape. Vanderbilt Law Rev. 66, 399–462 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Schmid, N., Sewerin, S. & Schmidt, T. S. Explaining advocacy coalition change with policy feedback. Policy Stud. J. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12365 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Meckling, J., Kelsey, N., Biber, E. & Zysman, J. Winning coalitions for climate policy: green industrial policy builds support for carbon regulation. Science 249, 1170–1171 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Pahle, M. et al. Sequencing to ratchet up climate policy stringency. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 861–867 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Edmondson, D. L., Kern, F. & Rogge, K. S. The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions. Res. Policy https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.03.010 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Fukuyama, F. What is governance? Governance 26, 347–368 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Greenstone, M. & Hanna, R. Environmental regulations, air and water pollution, and infant mortality in India. Am. Econ. Rev. 104, 3038–3072 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Karplus, V. J., Zhang, S. & Almond, D. Quantifying coal power plant responses to tighter SO2 emissions standards in China. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 7004–7009 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Ewing, J. Faster, Higher, Farther: How One of the World’s Largest Automakers Committed a Massive and Stunning Fraud (WW Norton & Company, 2017).

  61. Meckling, J. & Nahm, J. The power of process: state capacity and climate policy. Governance https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12338 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  65. Barrett, S. Climate treaties and ‘breakthrough’ technologies. Am. Econ. Rev. 96, 22–28 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Falkner, R. A minilateral solution for global climate change? On bargaining efficiency, club benefits, and international legitimacy. Perspect. Politics 14, 87–101 (2016). This article examines the benefits and challenges of different types of climate clubs.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Sabel, C. F. & Victor, D. G. Fixing the Climate: Strategies for an Uncertain World (Princeton Univ. Press, 2022). This book demonstrates how decentralized policy experimentation facilitates technological change and global climate cooperation.

  68. Meckling, J. & Chung, G. Y. Sectoral approaches for a post-2012 climate regime: a taxonomy. Clim. Policy 9, 652–668 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Victor, D. G., Geels, F. W. & Sharpe, S. Accelerating the Low Carbon Transition: The Case for Stronger, More Targeted and Coordinated International Action (Brookings Institution, 2019).

  70. Banks, G. D. & Fitzgerald, T. A sectoral approach allows an artful merger of climate and trade policy. Clim. Change https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02822-2 (2020).

  71. Koester, S., Hart, D. M. & Sly, G. Unworkable Solution: Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms and Global Climate Innovation (Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, 2021).

  72. Allan, B., Lewis, J. I. & Oatley, T. Green industrial policy and the global transformation of climate politics. Glob. Environ. Politics 21, 1–19 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  73. Hale, T. & Urpelainen, J. When and how can unilateral policies promote the international diffusion of environmental policies and clean technology? J. Theor. Politics 27, 177–205 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  74. Meckling, J. & Hughes, L. Global interdependence in clean energy transitions. Bus. Politics 20, 467–491 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  75. Nemet, G. How Solar Energy Became Cheap: A Model for Low-Carbon Innovation (Routledge, 2019).

  76. Nahm, J. Collaborative Advantage: Forging Green Industries in the New Global Economy (Oxford Univ. Press, 2021).

  77. Kim, S. E. & Urpelainen, J. Technology competition and international co-operation: friends or foes? Br. J. Polit. Sci. 44, 545–574 (2013). This article shows how international competition to develop clean technology industries can promote international climate cooperation.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Lewis, J. I. The rise of renewable energy protectionism: emerging trade conflicts and implications for low carbon development. Glob. Environ. Politics 14, 10–35 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  79. Popp, D. International innovation and diffusion of air pollution control technologies: the effects of NOX and SO2 regulation in the US, Japan, and Germany. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 51, 46–71 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  80. Giang, A. & Selin, N. E. Benefits of mercury controls for the United States. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 286–291 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Davidson, K., Coenen, L. & Gleeson, B. A decade of C40: Research insights and agendas for city networks. Glob. Policy 10, 697–708 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  82. Bulkeley, H. et al. Transnational Climate Governance (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

  83. Hoffmann, M. J. Climate Governance at the Crossroads: Experimenting with a Global Response after Kyoto (Oxford Univ. Press, 2011).

  84. Green, J. F. Rethinking Private Authority: Agents and Entrepreneurs in Global Environmental Governance (Princeton Univ. Press, 2013).

  85. Andonova, L. B., Hale, T. N. & Roger, C. B. National policy and transnational governance of climate change: substitutes or complements? Int. Stud. Q. 61, 253–268 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  86. Hale, T. & Roger, C. Orchestration and transnational climate governance. Rev. Int. Organ. 9, 59–82 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  87. Hale, T. Catalytic cooperation. Glob. Environ. Politics 20, 73–98 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  88. Meckling, J., Lipscy, P. Y., Finnegan, J. J. & Metz, F. Why nations lead or lag in energy transitions. Science 378, 31–33 (2022). This article shows how insulation and compensation are political pathways to adopting costly climate policies.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  90. Kelsey, N. International ozone negotiations and the green spiral. Glob. Environ. Politics 21, 64–87 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  91. Cashore, B. & Bernstein, S. Bringing the environment back in: overcoming the tragedy of the diffusion of the commons metaphor. Perspect. Politics https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592721002553 (2022).

  92. Peng, W. et al. Climate policy models need to get real about people—here’s how.Nature 594, 174–176 (2021).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Beck, S. & Mahony, M. The IPCC and the politics of anticipation. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 311–313 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  94. Hirt, L. F., Schell, G., Sahakian, M. & Trutnevyte, E. A review of linking models and socio-technical transitions theories for energy and climate solutions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 35, 162–179 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  95. Stern, N., Stiglitz, J. & Taylor, C. The economics of immense risk, urgent action and radical change: towards new approaches to the economics of climate change. J. Econ. Methodol. 29, 181–216 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  96. CAT Emissions Gap (Climate Action Tracker, 2022); https://climateactiontracker.org/global/cat-emissions-gaps

  97. Policy Instruments for the Environment Database (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2021); https://www.oecd.org/env/indicators-modelling-outlooks/policy-instrument-database/

  98. State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2019 (World Bank Group, 2019); https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/0a107aa7-dcc8-5619-bdcf-71f97a8909d6/full

  99. Renewables 2020 Global Status Report (REN21, 2020); https://www.ren21.net/gsr-2020/

  100. State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2020 (World Bank Group, 2020); https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/bcc20088-9fbf-5a71-8fa0-41d871df4625/full

  101. Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2019 (IRENA, 2020); https://www.irena.org/publications/2020/Jun/Renewable-Power-Costs-in-2019

  102. Evolution of Solar PV Module Cost by Data Source, 1970–2020 (IEA, 2022); https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/evolution-of-solar-pv-module-cost-by-data-source-1970-2020

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

  104. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  105. Skocpol, T. Naming the Problem: What it will Take to Counter Extremism and Engage Americans in the Fight Against Global Warming (Harvard University, 2013).

  106. Karplus, V. J., Zhang, J. & Zhao, J. Navigating and evaluating the labyrinth of environmental regulation in China. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 15, 300–322 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  107. Zhang, J. & Wang, C. Co-benefits and additionality of the clean development mechanism: an empirical analysis. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 62, 140–154 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  108. Zhang, D. et al. Integrity of firms’ emissions reporting in China’s early carbon markets. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 164–169 (2019).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  110. Karapin, R. The political viability of carbon pricing: policy design and framing in British Columbia and California. Rev. Policy Res. 37, 140–173 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank H. Jacoby, D.G. Victor and members of the Energy and Environment Policy Lab at UC Berkeley for valuable feedback. J.M. acknowledges funding from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch Project Accession Number 1020688.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Jonas Meckling, Valerie J. Karplus.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Jonas Meckling

  2. Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Valerie J. Karplus

Authors
  1. Jonas Meckling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Valerie J. Karplus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J.M. conceived the focus of this Review. J.M. and V.J.K. reviewed the literature. J.M. and V.J.K. synthesized the key messages and wrote the paper. J.M. and V.J.K. conceived the figures, V.J.K. created them.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonas Meckling.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Sustainability thanks Anthony Patt and Robert Keohane for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Meckling, J., Karplus, V.J. Political strategies for climate and environmental solutions. Nat Sustain 6, 742–751 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01109-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01109-5

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