Search

The article discusses climate change policymaking in the European Union (EU) and the lack of direction that came from the United Nations conference on climate change held in Copenhagen, Denmark in December 2009. The article discusses EU objectives for the Copenhagen meeting, EU actions taken at the meeting, the future of international cooperation on climate change, and influences that the Copenhagen meeting will have on the internal climate policies of the EU. Commentary is provided on the stance that the EU will take in future international climate change negotiations.

Based on the analysis of a large dataset on the environmental performance of European companies in five industrial sectors, this paper examines the question of whether the presence of an environmental management system (EMS) has a positive impact on the eco-efficiency of companies. It begins with a review of evidence about the link between EMS and environmental performance in business organisations, finding that, despite much research, there is still little quantitative evidence. The second part of the paper uses three independent statistical methods (simple correlations, Jaggi-Freedman indices and a 'trend differences' approach) to assess whether companies and production sites with EMS perform better than those without and whether performance improves after an EMS has been introduced. The paper shows that there is currently no evidence that EMS have a consistent and significant positive impact on environmental performance. Policy action based on the simple assumption that companies with an EMS perform better than those without therefore seems inappropriate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article assesses a wide range of alternative proposals for post-2012 international climate policy regimes. We believe that these proposals will serve as a basis for debates about how to configure post-2012 climate policy. The article characterizes and assesses the policy proposals along the lines of five key policy dilemmas. We argue that (1) many proposals have ideas on how to reduce emissions, but fewer have a solution on how to stimulate technical innovation; (2) many proposals formulate climate policy in isolation, while there are fewer proposals that try to mainstream climate policies in other policy areas; (3) many proposals advocate market-based solutions, while fewer realize that there are certain drawbacks to this solution especially at the international level; (4) most proposals have a preference for a UN-based regime, while a more fragmented regime, based on regional and sectoral arrangements may be emerging; and (5) most proposals have ideas about mitigation, but not many have creative ideas on how to integrate mitigation with adaptation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate change is widely recognised as a ‘wicked’ policy problem. Agreeing and implementing governance responses is proving extremely difficult. Policy makers in many jurisdictions now emphasise their ambition to govern using the best available evidence. One obvious source of such evidence is the evaluations of the performance of existing policies. But to what extent do these evaluations provide insights into the difficult dilemmas that governors typically encounter? We address this question by reviewing the content of 262 evaluation studies of European climate policies in the light of six kinds of dilemma found in the governance literature. We are interested in what these studies say about the performance of European climate policies and in their capacity to inform evidence-based policy-making. We find that the evaluations do arrive at common findings: that climate change is framed as a problem of market and/or state failure; that voluntary measures tend to be ineffective; that market-based instruments tend to be regressive; that EU-level policies have driven climate policies in the latecomer EU Member States; and that lack of monitoring and weak enforcement are major obstacles to effective policy implementation. However, we also conclude that the evidence base these studies represent is surprisingly weak for such a high profile area. There is too little systematic climate policy evaluation work in the EU to support systematic evidence-based policy making. This reduces the scope for sound policy making in the short run and is a constraint to policy learning in the longer term. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]