IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/tcpoxx/v16y2016i2p145-164.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Climate policy strength compared: China, the US, the EU, India, Russia, and Japan

Author

Listed:
  • Hugh Compston
  • Ian Bailey

Abstract

The few systematic international comparisons of climate policy strength made so far have serious weaknesses, particularly those that assign arbitrary weightings to different policy instrument types in order to calculate an aggregate score for policy strength. This article avoids these problems by ranking the six biggest emitters by far -- China, the US, the EU, India, Russia, and Japan -- on a set of six key policy instruments that are individually potent and together representative of climate policy as a whole: carbon taxes, emissions trading, feed-in tariffs, renewable energy quotas, fossil fuel power plant bans, and vehicle emissions standards. The results cast strong doubt on any idea that there is a clear hierarchy on climate policy with Europe at the top: the EU does lead on a number of policies but so does Japan. China, the US, and India each lead on one area. Russia is inactive on all fronts. At the same time climate policy everywhere remains weak compared to what it could be. Policy relevance This study enables climate policy strength, defined as the extent to which the statutory provisions of climate policies are likely to restrict GHG emissions if implemented as intended, to be assessed and compared more realistically across space and time. As such its availability for the six biggest emitters, which together account for over 70% of global CO 2 emissions, should facilitate international negotiations (1) by giving participants a better idea of where major emitters stand relative to each other as far as climate policy stringency is concerned, and (2) by identifying areas of weakness that need action.

Suggested Citation

  • Hugh Compston & Ian Bailey, 2016. "Climate policy strength compared: China, the US, the EU, India, Russia, and Japan," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(2), pages 145-164, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:tcpoxx:v:16:y:2016:i:2:p:145-164
    DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2014.991908
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/14693062.2014.991908
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/14693062.2014.991908?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Swenja Surminski & Andrew Williamson, 2014. "Policy Indexes as Tools for Decision Makers: The Case of Climate Policy," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 5(3), pages 275-285, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. den Elzen, Michel & Kuramochi, Takeshi & Höhne, Niklas & Cantzler, Jasmin & Esmeijer, Kendall & Fekete, Hanna & Fransen, Taryn & Keramidas, Kimon & Roelfsema, Mark & Sha, Fu & van Soest, Heleen & Vand, 2019. "Are the G20 economies making enough progress to meet their NDC targets?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 238-250.
    2. Roger Karapin, 2020. "The Political Viability of Carbon Pricing: Policy Design and Framing in British Columbia and California," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(2), pages 140-173, March.
    3. Cheng, Shulei & Wang, Kexin & Meng, Fanxin & Liu, Gengyuan & An, Jiafu, 2024. "The unanticipated role of fiscal environmental expenditure in accelerating household carbon emissions: Evidence from China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    4. Lauri Peterson, 2022. "Domestic and international climate policies: complementarity or disparity?," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 97-118, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      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:taf:tcpoxx:v:16:y:2016:i:2:p:145-164. 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.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/tcpo20 .

      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.