Search

The language of transformational change is increasingly applied to climate policy, and particularly in climate finance. Transformational change in this context is used with respect to low-carbon development futures, with the emphasis on mitigation and GHG metrics. But, for many developing countries, climate policy is embedded in a larger context of sustainable development objectives, defined through a national process. Viewed thus, there is a potential tension between mitigation-focused transformation and nationally driven sustainable development. We explore this tension in the context of operationalizing the Green Climate Fund (GCF), which has to deal with the fundamental tension between country ownership and transformational change. In relation to climate finance, acceptance of diverse interpretations of transformation are essential conditions for avoiding risk of transformational change becoming a conditionality on development. We further draw lessons from climate governance and the development aid literature. The article examines how in the case of both the Clean Development Mechanism and Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions, there has been limited success in achieving both development objectives and ‘nationally appropriate’ mitigation. The development aid literature points to process-based approaches as a possible alternative, but there are limitations to this approach. Policy relevance The concept of transformational change has gained prominence in climate finance. The conundrum facing the GCF is that it seeks to support transformational change in the climate realm, in a context where countries may have competing priorities. Balancing or even transcending this tension is a fundamental design challenge for the GCF. A primary focus on mitigation, particularly if metrics of performance are tied exclusively to GHG reduction, raise concerns about diluting ownership by recipient countries and evokes concerns of conditionality or worse. The literature on development assistance has explored options notably conditions on process and adequate capacity, and suggests that there are no short cuts to building domestic ownership. Actors on climate change need to avoid the risk that transformational change is perceived as, and becomes, an imposed condition. The risk that transformation change, operationalized in the context of unequal power relations, becomes an imposition on development, needs to be avoided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Stabilization presents a daunting challenge for all countries of the world, regardless of their stage of development, institutions or technological capabilities. This article explores the implications for the USA of climate stabilization at 3.4 W/m². Stabilization at this level, even under idealized conditions of nearly immediate global cooperation, will require a transformation of the USA's energy system, beginning almost immediately and extending throughout the century and beyond. This transformation will need to be even more rapid and extensive if the emissions reduction regime encompasses only a portion of the global economy. The availability of advanced technologies such as CCS, sustainable bioenergy production, wind and solar, nuclear energy and end-use efficiency improvements will facilitate this transition. Indeed, the degree to which technology advances over the coming century is among the most important determinants of the economic costs of stabilization for the USA and the rest of the world. The scope of the energy system transformation highlights the need to begin deploying technologies that are currently available and to continue to invest in R&D to develop newer, more efficient, and less expensive low- or zero-carbon energy supply technologies and end-use technologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although great strides have been made towards a more nuanced understanding of the impacts and causes of global climate change, the ability to design and implement policy responses that engender effective action has remained insufficient. Recent framings of adaptive capacity and mitigative capacity are built upon in this article, and response capacity is introduced as a useful way to integrate adaptation and mitigation within the context of underlying development paths. In tracing the complex and non-linear relationships between response capacity — which represents a broad pool of development-related resources that can be mobilized in the face of any risk — and real policy and behaviour change in response to climate change, the strong influence of manifold socio-cultural factors is revealed. Only through an analysis of these deeper trajectories can the most important barriers to action begin to be addressed. Theories of risk perception are drawn upon to elucidate the complex nature of the relationship between capacity and action. A deeper understanding of these relationships will aid in the design and implementation of adaptation and mitigation policies that more effectively address the multitude of temporally and contextually specific intricacies of human behaviour in response to risks such as climate change. The literatures of institutional genesis and change, socio-technical systems, social movements, and collective behaviour change theory (to name but a few) are argued to be crucial to an improved understanding of the underlying development paths which influence both capacity and action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent case studies for individual locations and on individual urban challenges reveal the growing complexity of managing interrelations among population, infrastructure and institutions. Climate change is increasing the pressures on many urban systems and adding to this complexity. Many of the case studies investigating urban dynamics in the light of climate change have chosen narrow, sector-specific approaches. Few projects have built on insights from complexity theory and related bodies of knowledge which are more consistent with the perspective that urban infrastructure systems are tightly coupled with one another and must respond to often subtle, long-term changes of technological, social and environmental conditions. Drawing on that knowledge, and building on insights from previous case studies, this article explores the potential roles of complexity theory in guiding investment and policy decisions in the urban context. Policy and management that are consistent with insights from complexity theory will need to anticipate a wide array of potential trajectories for urban dynamics, identify and implement strategies that are robust under a range of potential developments, continuously innovate the policy-making and management institutions, and intensify the exchange of knowledge between science and society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Can an integrated approach to mitigation and adaptation offer opportunities for a more effective response to climate change than the current strategies? The nature of the linkages depends on the dimensions: economic, institutional or environmental, and on the scale. Differences are pervasive: adaptation and mitigation usually have different temporal and spatial scales and are mostly relevant for different economic sectors, so that costs and benefits are distributed differently. The article concludes that generally the global, regional and — in most countries — national potential of synergetic options to mitigate and adapt to climate change is relatively low, and both strategies should be considered as complementary. However, a few notable exceptions are identified in the land and water management and urban planning sectors, in particular in countries or locations where these sectors provide important adaptation and mitigation opportunities. What is the theoretically most efficient and least expensive mixture of adaptation and mitigation policies may not be a very urgent policy question. Instead, five pragmatic ways of broadening climate policy are suggested, while taking into account the linkages between adaptation and mitigation: (1) avoiding trade-offs — when designing policies for mitigation or adaptation, (2) identifying synergies, (3) enhancing response capacity, (4) developing institutional links between adaptation and mitigation — e.g. in national institutions and in international negotiations, and (5) mainstreaming adaptation and mitigation considerations into broader sustainable development policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]