IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enscpo/v57y2016icp22-30.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The science and politics of co-benefits in climate policy

Author

Listed:
  • Mayrhofer, Jan P.
  • Gupta, Joyeeta

Abstract

The co-benefits concept implies a ‘win–win’ strategy to address two or more goals with a single policy measure. There is much scholarly and policy attention paid to this concept as a way to avoid making trade-offs between developmental and environmental issues. However, there is no review paper that reviews the nature, evolution, strengths and limits of the co-benefits concept in relation to climate change. Hence, this review article addresses the question: What does the literature tell us about the definition, application and use of the co-benefits concept? Using a literature review approach, this article explains the evolution of the co-benefits concept and its strengths and weaknesses. We conclude that while the concept has tremendous advocacy potential in dealing with the problem that the costs and benefits of climate policy are temporally and spatially not aligned, its de facto potential is limited as mostly economists have engaged with this concept, and there is little trans-disciplinary work undertaken that also looks at the politics and institutional aspects of co-benefits. The article thus provides an impetus to rethink current approaches to studying co-benefits and points to the need for inter- and trans-disciplinary research drawing on economic, political and social sciences.

Suggested Citation

  • Mayrhofer, Jan P. & Gupta, Joyeeta, 2016. "The science and politics of co-benefits in climate policy," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 22-30.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enscpo:v:57:y:2016:i:c:p:22-30
    DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.11.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901115301064
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.11.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enscpo:v:57:y:2016:i:c:p:22-30. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/environmental-science-and-policy/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.