Narrow Results

Climate change policy analysis has focused almost exclusively on national policy and even on harmonizing climate policies across countries, implicitly assuming that harmonization of climate policies at the subnational level would be mandated or guaranteed. We argue that the design and implementation of climate policy in a federal union will diverge in important ways from policy design in a unitary government. National climate policies built on the assumption of a unitary model of governance are unlikely to achieve the expected outcome because of interactions with policy choices made at the subnational level. In a federal system, the information and incentives generated by a national policy must pass through various levels of subnational fiscal and regulatory policy. Effective policy design must recognize both the constraints and the opportunities presented by a federal structure of government. Furthermore, policies that take advantage of the federal structure of government can improve climate governance outcomes.

This paper empirically examines the relationship between carbon emissions and economic growth by applying the co-integration analysis and Granger causality test to the time series data of carbon emissions and gross domestic product (GDP) of the world’s top 20 emitters from 1990 to 2015. Co-integration analysis shows that there is a long-term equilibrium relationship between carbon emissions and economic growth in most countries; Granger causality test verifies a one-way causal link between carbon emissions and economic growth in most major emitters. In developed countries, economic growth is the Granger cause of carbon emissions, while the opposite is true in developing countries. The results reflect different characteristics regarding carbon emission reduction in developed and developing countries as they are at different developing stages. Carbon emission reduction exerts much greater adverse effects on the economic growth of developing countries than it does on that of developed countries. Based on the results of the Granger causal analysis, it is found that the requirements for developing countries to substantially reduce emissions are not in line with the characteristics in their current developing stage and therefore may pose obstructions. Developed countries should take the lead in carrying out emission reductions due to their accountability for historical emissions as well as their development stages and capabilities. In addition, they should aid developing countries in their efforts for transforming and upgrading development and reducing dependence of economic growth on carbon emissions. International climate governance should take into account the needs and characteristics of different countries for future development, and build a mechanism for international cooperation to achieve synergy between social economic development and global climate governance.

Climate change is a threat to all of humankind, yet there is still a leadership vacuum on climate governance. At the same time, the deepening climate crisis also presents a golden opportunity for Beijing to assume the role of a global leader. China has the capacity to do it in a way that the United States, Russia, India, and the European Union do not. Taking swift climate action is in Beijing’s interest. Greater contributions to climate governance will certainly help advance China’s long-term political interest in both raising its political status and demonstrating the claimed superiority of its system of government. Positive rhetoric and robust action by China are likely to have a disproportionate effect on the rest of the world. Policy adjustment and implementation by Beijing will bring benefits to the rest of the world. Climate policy options that Beijing may take in the future are not mutually exclusive. The policy shift on climate change could also be attached more firmly to the idea of sustainable development as a defining factor of China’s approach to tackling the climate change threat.

Beijing is making systematic efforts to accelerate its energy transition by setting ambitious targets, developing and employing clean technology, and stepping up global cooperation. This embrace of green and low-carbon development comes at a time when Beijing has arrived at a crossroads where it must choose a more sustainable development model that lays equal emphasis on resilience and efficiency. Even though China’s past concrete actions have paved the way for a smoother transition, more robust measures, not least concerted efforts by major countries, are still required to secure more irreversible progress as the current Russia–Ukraine crisis and potential fallout may create new roadblocks for the global race to zero carbon emissions. Rising geopolitical tensions as a result of the return of great power competition make it more urgent for leading countries to increase policy coordination to avert climate calamity.

The U.S. attitude toward global climate governance is volatile, and its behavior is often constrained by its domestic politics. Studying the implementation of climate policy at the state level in the United States from the perspective of party politics and political polarization in the United States can provide important lessons for climate governance practices. Through a panel data model, this research analyzes the relationship between the party affiliations of governors in all 50 U.S. states and carbon dioxide emissions from 1997 to 2020. Based on this, the connection between political polarization and climate governance is discussed. Results indicate that the party affiliations of U.S. state governors significantly impact carbon dioxide emissions in their respective states; American democracy has the inherent flaw of failing to fulfill electoral promises; U.S. party politics is not conducive to the stable, long-term development of climate policies. These results reflect deeper societal contradictions and divides in the U.S., and the political polarization epitomized by the climate governance issue will have serious spillover effects on global climate governance.

Climate change is currently placed on every national and international agenda and is also shaping the strategies of many businesses worldwide, as international cooperation is indispensable to meet the collective goods problem. Climate policy has evolved as a subset of the foreign policy of major and small, vulnerable island nations. New Delhi has repeatedly repositioned itself from normative to empirical approaches seeking equitable distribution of the carbon space while underlining the narrative of historical responsibilities. Given its emissions profile, economic growth, and leadership role in the developing world, India has been capitalizing on the avenues of climate change-related market mechanisms like clean development mechanisms (CDMs) and co-benefits from the adaptation and mitigation efforts. Over the years, India’s climate change policies having emerged as a by-product of its energy and economic policies, in accordance with international agreements and protocols.

India’s ambitious initiatives like the International Solar Alliance and Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure, India’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and ratification of Paris Treaty reflect India’s engagement on a global scale. At Glasgow, India committed to net-zero emissions by 2070. With a continued emphasis on sustainable development and not compromising its national interests, a multilateral approach will be the way ahead for India. India should continue to be a champion of equity and draw its own low carbon path trajectory, thereby showcasing its responsibilities toward global commons and its actions, forcing the developed countries to introspect their contributions to protecting the planet (PIB 2021b). India’s approach to climate governance mirrors balancing international commitments and domestic developmental imperatives. India has a rich tradition of not exploiting nature, and its indigenous knowledge and sustainable lifestyles are already being endorsed on climate negotiation fora (Parampara 2015).