The Effects of Risk, Knowledge, and Ideological Beliefs on Climate Policy Preferences: A Study of Colorado Climate and Energy Policy Actors

2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dallas J. Elgin
Keyword(s):  
Climate Policy ◽  
Energy Policy ◽  
Policy Preferences ◽  
Policy Actors ◽  
Risk Knowledge ◽  
Climate And Energy Policy

scholarly journals EU Climate and Energy Policy: How Myopic Is It?

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 337-347
Author(s):  
Jana Gheuens ◽  
Sebastian Oberthür
Keyword(s):  
Climate Policy ◽  
Energy Policy ◽  
Greenhouse Gas Emission ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Eu Climate Policy ◽  
Recent Climate ◽  
Short Termism ◽  
Climate And Energy Policy

This article investigates the shortsightedness or myopia of recent climate and energy policy (CEP) in the EU. To this end, it develops and applies a measurement tool of short-termism composed of four key criteria: (1) the reflection of science-based long-term thinking in the policy process and its output; (2) the degree to which mid-term greenhouse gas emission targets and accompanying policies align with science-based long-term objectives; (3) the stringency of the legislation; and (4) its adaptability. We use these criteria to assess the levels of short-termism of the EU’s 2020 and 2030 CEP frameworks and the (still evolving) European Green Deal (EGD). Overall, we find that the level of myopia of EU CEP has fluctuated and has advanced far less than the development of the nominal mid-term emission targets might suggest. The EGD’s 55% emission reduction target for 2030 only constitutes a return to the levels of alignment with science-based long-term objectives existing in the 2020 Package (making good on the regression of the 2030 Framework). It is primarily due to the maturing of long-term thinking and a ratcheting mechanism, that EU climate policy under the EGD can be considered less myopic than the 2020 Package (although the assessment remains preliminary pending the adoption of further implementing legislation). These findings lay the ground for future research that not only investigates reasons for the general myopia of (EU) climate policy, but also the drivers of the fluctuations over time.

EU Climate and Energy Policy: A Hesitant Supranational Turn?

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 67-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jørgen Wettestad ◽  
Per Ove Eikeland ◽  
Måns Nilsson
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Energy Policy ◽  
Vertical Integration ◽  
Energy Security ◽  
Emissions Trading ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Energy Market ◽  
Climate Regime ◽  
Regional Energy ◽  
Climate And Energy Policy

This article examines the recent changes of three central EU climate and energy policies: the revised Emissions Trading Directive (ETS); the Renewables Directive (RES); and internal energy market (IEM) policy. An increasing transference of competence to EU level institutions, and hence “vertical integration,” has taken place, most clearly in the case of the ETS. The main reasons for the differing increase in vertical integration are, first, that more member states were dissatisfied with the pre-existing system in the case of the ETS than in the two other cases. Second, the European Commission and Parliament were comparatively more united in pushing for changes in the case of the ETS. And, third, although RES and IEM policies were influenced by regional energy security concerns, they were less structurally linked to and influenced by the global climate regime than the ETS.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document