Search

There has been a growing focus on uncertainty as a distinct concept in the risk literature. This paper is concerned with how those involved in the design and implementation of climate change policy conceptualize risk and uncertainty. Based on interviews with policy and industry elites in Australia, China and the UK, it finds that participants did not distinguish between "risk" and "uncertainty" in their conceptualization of climate threats. For the majority of them, politics was the most significant source of risk and uncertainty in climate policy, but delegation of otherwise political decisions to the market was seen as the best solution. The conclusion suggests that the conceptual distinction between risk and uncertainty is less important, for policy and industry elites, than the need to develop mechanisms that account for both persistent scientific uncertainties as well as interpretive and moral ambiguities in climate policy design and implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To achieve European Union (EU) greenhouse gas emissions of 80–95% below 1990 levels by 2050, CO2emissions from residential energy consumption must be substantially reduced. Recognition of this has led to the introduction of a range of policy instruments at both EU and member state level. These policies are examined for the EU and the UK, first by grouping them into three ‘pillars of policy’ – standards and engagement, markets and pricing, and strategic investment (each of which focus on different ‘domains of change’ embodying different economic processes) – and then by assessing the strengths and weaknesses of each pillar in terms of instrument coverage and effectiveness. Strengths and weaknesses common to both UK and EU policy landscapes are found, including a comprehensive but broadly ineffective standards and engagement pillar of policy, and an ineffective markets and pricing landscape (including effective subsidization of energy consumption in the UK, permitted by the EU), with poor coverage. The strategic investment landscape is found (until recently) to be substantially stronger in the UK compared with EU instruments and requirements. Priority reform actions are also proposed to address the weaknesses identified. The paper also offers discussion of recent policy developments in the UK. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Although the literature on carbon accounting is growing, studies on the valuation impact of firms' carbon abatement investment (CAI) are scarce, and the influence of country-specific climate policies is largely underexplored. Drawing on both the benefit and cost perspectives of the resource-based view, we predict that investors' perceptions of the net benefits of CAI are contingent on national climate policies. Based on a comparative analysis of data from the US, the UK, and Australia, we find that CAI is viewed as value-destroying by investors in countries that do not have a stringent climate change policy. In contrast, CAI enhances firm value in jurisdictions that implement such policies. Additional analyses show that investors also consider the characteristics of CAI (i.e., the size and payback period) and the act and extensiveness of voluntary CAI disclosure when evaluating firm value. Our findings fill important gaps in the literature and have critical implications for policymakers, investors, managers, and other stakeholders who are responsible for the transition to a carbon-neutral economy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How do UK local authorities contribute to national carbon reductions? Urban energy and carbon models are emerging as a vital tool for local authorities that wish to understand the greenhouse gas emissions of their city and how to reduce them. The linkage between policy processes and tools is rarely recognized and tools are deployed ad hoc. A set of policy-relevant assessment criteria is proposed and used to review the emergent state-of-the-art in UK urban energy and carbon modelling. Drawing on the authors' own experience and the literature, a differentiation is made between accounting-style inventory tools and policy modelling tools. It is argued that although part of the same overall policy process, these two approaches lack consistency in methods and implementation. A comparison with local air pollution modelling makes this contrast apparent. A lack of clarity exists for the use of modelling in urban energy and carbon policy processes. A normalized urban modelling practice would ensure consistency while preserving local flexibility. Comment les autorités locales britanniques contribuent-elles aux réductions de carbone au niveau national? Les modèles d'énergie urbaine et de carbone apparaissent comme constituant un outil essentiel pour les autorités locales qui souhaitent comprendre les émissions de gaz à effet de serre de leur ville et la manière de les réduire. Il est rarement reconnu qu'il existe un lien entre les processus des politiques et les outils, et ceux-ci sont déployés ad hoc. Il est proposé un ensemble de critères d'évaluation pertinents à l'égard des politiques concernées, utilisé pour examiner les techniques dernier cri émergentes dans le domaine de la modélisation de l'énergie urbaine et du carbone au Royaume-Uni. En s'appuyant sur l'expérience propre des auteurs et la littérature, il est établi une différenciation entre les outils d'inventaire de type comptable et les outils de modélisation des politiques. Il est soutenu que, bien que faisant partie du même processus politique global, ces deux approches manquent de cohérence quant aux méthodes et à leur mise en oeuvre. Une comparaison avec la modélisation de la pollution de l'air au niveau local rend ce contraste évident. Il existe un manque de clarté concernant l'utilisation de la modélisation dans les processus des politiques relatives à l'énergie urbaine et au carbone. Une pratique de modélisation urbaine normalisée assurerait de la cohérence tout en préservant une flexibilité au niveau local. Mots clés: cadre bâti, rréduction du carbone, rvilles, rpolitique climatique, rénergie, rautorités locales, rmodélisation, défis de la recherche [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The search for effective and efficient climate policy has led to a major expansion in the use of market-based instruments and voluntary agreements (New Environmental Policy Instruments [NEPIs]) at national and international levels. Yet, despite the prevalence of these instruments as an outcropping of the broader shift toward neoliberal approaches to environmental policies, tremendous diversity exists in the way signatories to the Kyoto Protocol have deployed NEPIs. Drawing on recent geographical and political science research on the neoliberalization of nature, this article reexamines reasons for geographical variations in market environmentalism and, in particular, the role of national policy styles in refracting neoliberal influence on environmental policy. In so doing, I argue that policy styles are too frequently conceptualized in terms of state processes, overlooking complex and territorialized social relations between regulators and regulated parties. To illustrate this claim, I compare the implementation of climate policy in the United Kingdom and Germany, exploring the effects of national policy styles on NEPI deployment, factors contributing to industry reactions to market-based and voluntary measures, and how national policy styles color these evaluations. This is used to argue that understanding geographical variations in market environmentalism requires greater appreciation of the role of industry groups in the creation, defense, and evolution of national policy styles. I conclude by reflecting on the study's implications for the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]