1932

Abstract

This article takes stock of the evolution of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) through the prism of three recent shifts: the move away from targeting industrial country emissions in a legally binding manner under the Kyoto Protocol to mandating voluntary contributions from all countries under the Paris Agreement; the shift from the top-down Kyoto architecture to the hybrid Paris outcome; and the broadening out from a mitigation focus under Kyoto to a triple goal comprising mitigation, adaptation, and finance under Paris. This review discusses the implications of these processes for the effectiveness, efficiency, and equity of the UNFCCC's institutional and operational settings for meeting the convention's objectives. It ends by sketching three potential scenarios facing the UNFCCC as it seeks to coordinate the Paris Agreement and its relationship to the wider landscape of global climate action.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-030119
2018-10-17
2024-06-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/energy/43/1/annurev-environ-102017-030119.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-030119&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1.  Keohane RO, Victor DG 2011. The regime complex for climate change. Perspect. Polit. 9:7–23
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2.  Abbott KW 2012. The transnational regime complex for climate change. Environ. Plan. C 30:571–90
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3. United Nations (UN). 1992. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change New York: UN https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4.  Carle J 2015. Climate change seen as top global threat Rep., Pew Res. Cent. Washington, DC: http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2015/07/Pew-Research-Center-Global-Threats-Report-FINAL-July-14-2015.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5.  Depledge J, Chasek PS 2012. The escalating pace and intensity of environmental negotiations. The Road from Rio: Lessons Learned from Twenty Years of Multilateral Environmental Negotiations PS Chasek, LM Wagner 19–38 New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6.  Depledge J 2017. Foundations for the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement on Climate Change: Analysis and Commentary D Klein, MP Carazo, M Doelle, J Bulmer, A Higham 27–42 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 7.  Susskind LE 1994. Environmental Diplomacy New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8.  Oberthür S 2001. Linkages between the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols—enhancing synergies between protecting the ozone layer and the global climate. Int. Environ. Agreem. 1:357–77
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 9.  Schroeder H 2010. The history of international climate change politics: three decades of progress, process and procrastination. The Politics of Climate Change M Boykoff 26–42 London: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10.  Houghton JT, Jenkins G, Ephraums JJ 1990. Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment Work. Group I. IPCC Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11.  Schroeder H 2001. Negotiating the Kyoto Protocol, An Analysis of Negotiation Dynamics in International Negotiations Münster, Ger.: LIT Verlag
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 12.  Peters G 2017. How much carbon dioxide can we emit?. CICERO Mar. 16, https://www.cicero.uio.no/no/posts/klima/how-much-carbon-dioxide-can-we-emit
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13.  Dimitrov RS 2016. The Paris Agreement on climate change: behind closed doors. Glob. Environ. Polit. 16:1–11
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 14. Clim. Action Tracker. 2017. Improvement in warming outlook as India and China move ahead, but Paris Agreement gap still looms large Brief. Pap., Clim. Action Tracker. http://climateanalytics.org/files/cat_2017-11-15_improvement-in-warming-outlook.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 15.  Höhne N, Takeshi K, Warnecke C, Roeser F, Fekete H et al. 2017. The Paris Agreement: resolving the inconsistency between global goals and national contributions. Clim. Policy 17:16–32
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16.  Rogelj J, Chen C, Nabel J, Macey K, Hare W et al. 2010. Analysis of the Copenhagen Accord pledges and its global climatic impacts, a snapshot of dissonant ambitions. Environ. Res. Lett. 5:034013
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17.  Jacquet J, Jamieson D 2016. Soft but significant power in the Paris Agreement. Nat. Clim. Change 6:643–46
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18.  Brunnée J, Streck C 2013. The UNFCCC as a negotiation forum: towards common but more differentiated responsibilities. Clim. Policy 13:589–607
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19.  Brewer TL 2011. Climate change technology transfer: a new paradigm and policy agenda. Clim. Policy 8:516–26
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 20.  Lema R, Lema A 2012. Technology transfer? The rise of China and India in green technology sectors. Innov. Dev. 2:23–44
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21.  Urban F 2018. China's rise: challenging the North-South technology transfer paradigm for climate change mitigation and low carbon energy. Energy Policy 113:320–30
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22.  Ascui F, Lovell H 2012. Carbon accounting and the construction of competence. J. Clean. Prod. 36:48–59
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23.  Betsill M, Dubash NK, Paterson M, van Asselt A, Vihma A, Winkler H 2015. Building productive links between the UNFCCC and the broader global climate governance landscape. Glob. Environ. Polit. 15:1–10
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24.  Okereke C, Bulkeley H, Schroeder H 2009. Conceptualizing climate governance beyond the international regime. Glob. Environ. Polit. 9:58–78
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 25.  Davis SJ, Caldeira K 2010. Consumption-based accounting of CO2 emissions. PNAS 107:5687–92
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 26.  Weber CL, Peters GP, Guan D, Hubacek K 2008. The contribution of Chinese exports to climate change. Energy Policy 36:3572–77
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27.  Lövbrand E, Stripple J 2011. Making climate change governable: accounting for carbon as sinks, credits and personal budgets. Crit. Policy Stud. 5:187–200
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28.  Ormond J, Goodman MK 2015. A new regime of carbon counting: the practices and politics of accounting for everyday carbon through CO2e. Glob. Environ. Change 34:119–31
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29.  Turner JM 2014. Counting carbon: the politics of carbon footprints and climate governance from the individual to the global. Glob. Environ. Polit. 14:59–78
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 30.  Andonova L, Betsill M, Bulkeley H 2009. Transnational climate governance. Glob. Environ. Polit. 9:52–73
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 31.  Betsill M, Bulkeley H 2006. Cities and the multilevel governance of global climate change. Glob. Gov. 12:141–59
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32.  van der Ven H, Bernstein S, Hoffman M 2017. Valuing the contributions of nonstate and subnational actors to climate governance. Glob. Environ. Polit. 17:1–20
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33.  Steiner F 2017. Opinion: the COP23 climate circus in Germany. Deutsche Welle Nov. 15. http://www.dw.com/en/opinion-the-cop23-climate-circus-in-germany/a-41396856
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 34.  Lövbrand E, Hjerpe M, Linnér BO 2017. Making climate governance global: how UN climate summitry comes to matter in a complex climate regime. Environ. Polit. 26:580–99
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35.  Schroeder H, Boykoff MT, Spiers L 2012. Equity and state representations in climate negotiations. Nat. Clim. Change 2:834–36
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2014. Non-governmental organization constituencies Bonn: UNFCCC https://unfccc.int/files/parties_and_observers/ngo/application/pdf/constituencies_and_you.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2014. Constituencies Bonn: UNFCCC http://unfccc.int/parties_and_observers/observer_organizations/items/9519.php#constituencies
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2018. Statistics on observer organizations in the UNFCCC process Bonn: UNFCCC http://unfccc.int/parties_and_observers/observer_organizations/items/9545.php
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 39. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2016. Decision 1/CP.21: Adoption of the Paris Agreement, FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1. 12 Dec Paris: UNFCCC https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 40.  Hale T 2016. “All hands on deck”: the Paris Agreement and nonstate climate action. Glob. Environ. Polit. 16:12–22
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 41.  Bäckstrand K, Kuyper J, Linnér BO, Lövbrand E 2017. Non-state actors in global climate governance: from Copenhagen to Paris and beyond. Environ. Polit. 26:561–79
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 42.  Dagnet Y, Waskow D, Elliott C, Northrop E, Thwaites J et al. 2016. Staying on track from Paris: advancing the key elements of the Paris Agreement Work. Pap. World Resour. Inst. Washington, DC: https://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/Staying_on_Track_from_Paris_-_Advancing_the_Key_Elements_of_the_Paris_Agreement_0.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 43.  Bailey R, Tomlinson S 2016. Post-Paris: taking forward the global climate change deal Environ. Resour. Brief. Pap. R. Inst. Int. Aff. Chatham House Energy: https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/publications/research/2016-04-21-post-paris-bailey-tomlinson.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 44.  Winkler H 2010. An architecture for long-term climate finance: North-South cooperation based on equity and common but differentiated responsibilities. Global Climate Governance Beyond 2012: Architecture, Agency and Adaptation F Biermann, P Pattberg, F Zelli 97–115 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 45.  Betzold C 2014. Responsiveness or influence? Whom to lobby in international climate change negotiations. Int. Negot. 19:35–61
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 46.  Levin K, Cashore B, Bernstein S, Auld G 2012. Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy Sci 45:123–52
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 47.  Roberts D 2011. A way to win the climate fight?. The American Prospect May 10. http://prospect.org/article/way-win-climate-fight
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 48.  Victor D 2009. Plan B for Copenhagen. Nature 461:342–44
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 49.  Eckersley R 2012. Moving forward in the climate negotiations: Multilateralism or minilateralism?. Glob. Environ. Polit. 12:24–42
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 50.  Falkner B 2016. A minilateral solution for global climate change? On bargaining efficiency, club benefits, and international legitimacy. Perspect. Polit. 14:87–101
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 51.  Nordhaus W 2015. Climate clubs: overcoming free-riding in international climate policy. Am. Econ. Rev. 105:1339–70
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 52.  Hovi J, Sprinz DF, Sælen H, Underdal A 2017. The club approach: A gateway to effective climate co-operation?. Br. J. Polit. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123416000788
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  53. 53.  Hjerpe M, Nasiritousi N 2015. Views on alternative forums for effectively tackling climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 5:864–67
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 54.  Widerberg O 2017. The “Black Box” problem of orchestration: how to evaluate the performance of the Lima-Paris Action Agenda. Environ. Polit. 26:715–37
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 55.  Nasiritousi N, Linnér BO 2016. Open or closed meetings? Explaining nonstate actor involvement in the international climate change negotiations. Int. Environ. Agreem. 16:127–44
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 56.  Hjerpe M, Linnér BO 2010. Functions of COP side-events in climate-change governance. Clim. Policy 10:167–80
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 57.  Abbott KW, Snidal D 2009. Strengthening international regulation through transmittal new governance: overcoming the orchestration deficit. Vanderbilt J. Transnatl. Law 42:501–78
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 58.  Abbott KW, Genschel P, Snidal D, Zangl B 2016. Two logics of indirect governance: delegation and orchestration. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 46:719–29
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 59.  Stevenson H, Dryzek JS 2014. Democratizing Global Climate Governance Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 60.  Scholte JA 2004. Civil society and democratically accountable global governance. Gov. Oppos. 39:211–33
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 61.  Steffek J, Nanz P 2008. Emergent patterns of civil society participation in global and European governance. Civil Society Participation in European and Global Governance: A Cure for the Democratic Deficit? J Steffek, C Kissling, P Nanz 1–29 Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 62.  Tallberg J, Uhlin A 2011. Civil society and global democracy: an assessment. Global Democracy: Normative and Empirical Perspectives D Archibugi, R Marchetti, M Koenig-Archibugi 210–32 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 63.  Gupta A 2008. Transparency under scrutiny: information disclosure in global environmental governance. Glob. Environ. Polit. 8:1–7
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 64.  della Porta D, Tarrow S 2004. Transnational Protest and Global Activism Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 65.  Kuyper JW, Linnér BO, Schroeder H 2018. Non-state actors in hybrid global climate governance: justice, legitimacy, and effectiveness in a post-Paris era. WIREs Clim. Change 9:e497
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 66.  Betsill M, Corell E 2001. NGO influence in international environmental negotiations: a framework for analysis. Glob. Environ. Polit. 1:65–85
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 67.  Fisher D, Green J 2004. Understanding disenfranchisement: civil society and developing countries’ influence and participation in global governance for sustainable development. Glob. Environ. Polit. 4:65–84
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 68.  Keck M, Sikkink K 1999. Transnational advocacy networks in international and regional politics. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 51:89–101
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 69.  Nasiritousi N, Hjerpe M, Linnér BO 2016. The roles of non-state actors in climate change governance: understanding agency through governance profiles. Int. Environ. Agreem. 16:35–77
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 70.  O'Neill K, Balsiger J, VanDeveer S 2004. Actors, norms, and impact: recent international cooperation theory and the influence of the agent-structure debate. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 7:149–75
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 71.  Doelle M 2016. The Paris Agreement: historic breakthrough or high stakes experiment. Clim. Law 6:1–20
    [Google Scholar]
  72. 72.  Bodle R, Donat L, Duwe M 2016. The Paris Agreement: analysis, assessment and outlook. Carbon Clim. Law Rev. 10:5–22
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 73.  Pickering J, Betzold C, Skovgaard J 2017. Special issue: managing fragmentation and complexity in the emerging system of international climate finance. Int. Environ. Agreem. 17:1–6
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 74.  Pauw WP, Klein RJT, Vellinga P, Biermann F 2016. Private finance for adaptation: Do private realities meet public ambitions?. Clim. Change 134:489–503
    [Google Scholar]
  75. 75.  Fridahl M, Linnér BO 2015. Perspectives on the Green Climate Fund: possible compromises on capitalization and balanced allocation. Clim. Dev. 8:105–9
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 76. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2015. The Emissions Gap Report 2015: A UNEP Synthesis Report Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP http://uneplive.unep.org/media/docs/theme/13/EGR_2015_301115_lores.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 77.  Depledge J 2017. Climate change negotiations: pushing diplomacy to its limits. The New Economic Diplomacy: Decision-Making and Negotiation in International Economic Relations N Bayne, S Woolcock 274–95 London: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  78. 78.  Victor DG 2004. The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the Struggle to Slow Global Warming Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  79. 79.  Dubash NK, Hagemann M, Höhne N, Upadhyaya P 2013. Developments in national climate change mitigation legislation and strategy. Clim. Policy 13:649–64
    [Google Scholar]
  80. 80.  Michaelowa A 2015. Opportunities for and alternatives to global climate regimes post-Kyoto. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 40:395–417
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 81.  Hoffmann MJ 2011. Climate Governance at the Crossroads: Experimenting with a Global Response after Kyoto Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  82. 82. World Bank. 2009. Integrating development into the global climate regime. World Development Report 2010 5233–50 Washington, DC: World Bank http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDRS/Resources/477365-1327504426766/8389626-1327510418796/Chapter-5.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 83.  Hepburn C 2007. Carbon trading: a review of the Kyoto mechanisms. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 32:375–93
    [Google Scholar]
  84. 84.  Green JF 2013. Order out of chaos: public and private rules for managing carbon. Glob. Environ. Polit. 13:1–25
    [Google Scholar]
  85. 85.  Hickmann T 2017. The reconfiguration of authority in global climate governance. Int. Stud. Rev. 19:430–51
    [Google Scholar]
  86. 86.  Dryzek JS 2016. Institutions for the Anthropocene: governance in a changing earth system. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 46:937–56
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 87.  Hale T, Held D, Young K 2013. Gridlock: Why Global Cooperation is Failing When We Need It Most Cambridge, UK: Polity
    [Google Scholar]
  88. 88.  Lazarus RJ 2008. Super wicked problems and climate change: restraining the present to liberate the future. Cornell Law Rev 94:1153–234
    [Google Scholar]
  89. 89.  Pielke R, Prins G, Rayner S, Sarewitz D 2007. Lifting the taboo on adaptation. Nature 445:597–98
    [Google Scholar]
  90. 90.  Bassett TJ, Fogelman C 2013. Déjà vu or something new? The adaptation concept in the climate change literature. Geoforum 48:42–53
    [Google Scholar]
  91. 91.  Watson RT, Albritton DL 2001. Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report—IPCC Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  92. 92.  Adger WN, Arnell NW, Tompkins EL 2005. Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Glob. Environ. Change 15:77–86
    [Google Scholar]
  93. 93.  Folke C, Carpenter S, Walker B, Scheffer M, Chapin T, Rockström J 2010. Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecol. Soc. 15:20
    [Google Scholar]
  94. 94.  Bouwer LM, Aerts JC 2006. Financing climate change adaptation. Disasters 30:49–63
    [Google Scholar]
  95. 95.  Mogelgaard K, McGray H, Amerasinghe NM 2015. What does the Paris Agreement mean for climate resilience and adaptation?. World Resources Institute Dec 23. http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/12/what-does-paris-agreement-mean-climate-resilience-and-adaptation
    [Google Scholar]
  96. 96.  Steckel JC, Jakob M, Flachsland C, Kornek U, Lessmann K, Edenhofer O 2017. From climate finance toward sustainable development finance. WIREs Clim. Change 8:e437
    [Google Scholar]
  97. 97. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2017. One Planet Summit: finance commitments fire-up higher momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement. UN Climate Change News Dec 12. https://unfccc.int/news/one-planet-summit-finance-commitments-fire-up-higher-momentum-for-paris-climate-change-agreement
    [Google Scholar]
  98. 98.  McCollum D, Nagai Y, Riahi K, Marangoni G, Calvin K et al. 2013. Energy investments under climate policy: a comparison of global models. Clim. Change Econ. 4:1–37
    [Google Scholar]
  99. 99.  Beer CT 2014. Climate justice, the Global South, and policy preferences of Kenyan environmental NGOs. Glob. South 8:84–100
    [Google Scholar]
  100. 100.  Bernauer T 2013. Climate change politics. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 16:421–48
    [Google Scholar]
  101. 101.  Johnson T, Urpelainen J 2012. A strategic theory of regime integration and separation. Int. Organ. 66:645–77
    [Google Scholar]
  102. 102.  Iacobuta G, Höhne N 2017. Low-carbon transition under Agenda 2030: climate-development trade-offs and synergies Work. Pap. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e6ea/4670a84a5d1def992544a7c06d7dd376c37c.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  103. 103.  von Stechow C, McCollum D, Riahi K, Minx JC, Kriegler E et al. 2015. Integrating global climate change mitigation goals with other sustainability objectives: a synthesis. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 40:363–94
    [Google Scholar]
  104. 104.  Creutzig F, Fernandez B, Haberl H, Khosla R, Mulugetta Y, Seto KC 2016. Beyond technology: demand-side solutions for climate change mitigation. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41:173–98
    [Google Scholar]
  105. 105.  von Stechow C, Minx JC, Riahi K, Jewell J, McCollum DL et al. 2016. 2°C and SDGs: United they stand, divided they fall?. Environ. Res. Lett. 11:034022
    [Google Scholar]
  106. 106.  Pauw WP, Klein RJ, Mbeva K, Dzebo A, Cassanmagnago D, Rudloff A 2018. Beyond headline mitigation numbers: We need more transparent and comparable NDCs to achieve the Paris Agreement on climate change. Clim. Change 147:23–29
    [Google Scholar]
  107. 107.  Northrop E, Biru H, Lima S, Bouye M, Song R 2016. Examining the alignment between the intended nationally determined contributions and sustainable development goals. World Resources Institute Sept. 26. http://www.wri.org/publication/examining-alignment-between-intended-nationally-determined-contributions-and-sustainable
    [Google Scholar]
  108. 108.  Peters GP, Le Quéré C, Andrew RM, Canadell JG, Friedlingstein P et al. 2017. Towards real-time verification of CO2 emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 7:848–50
    [Google Scholar]
  109. 109.  Taebi B, Safari A 2017. On effectiveness and legitimacy of “shaming” as a strategy for combatting climate change. Sci. Eng. Ethics 23:1289–306
    [Google Scholar]
  110. 110.  Falkner R 2016. The Paris Agreement and the new logic of international climate politics. Int. Aff. 92:1107–25
    [Google Scholar]
  111. 111.  Landemore H 2012. Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  112. 112.  Dombrowski K 2010. Filling the gap? An analysis of non-governmental organizations responses to participation and representation deficits in global climate governance. Int. Environ. Agreem. 10:397–416
    [Google Scholar]
  113. 113.  Bodansky D 2016. The legal character of the Paris Agreement. Rev. Eur. Comp. Int. Environ. Law 25:142–50
    [Google Scholar]
  114. 114.  Kemp L 2017. US-proofing the Paris climate agreement. Clim. Policy 17:86–101
    [Google Scholar]
  115. 115. Organ. Econ. Co-op. Dev., Int. Energy Agency (OECD/IEA). 2018. Global Energy & CO2 Status Report Paris: OECD/IEA http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/GECO2017.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  116. 116.  Ostrom E 2012. Nested externalities and polycentric institutions: Must we wait for global solutions to climate change before taking actions at other scales?. Econ. Theory 49:353–69
    [Google Scholar]
  117. 117.  Jordan AJ, Huitema D, Hildén M, van Asselt H, Rayner TJ et al. 2015. Emergence of polycentric climate governance and its future prospects. Nat. Clim. Change 5:977–82
    [Google Scholar]
  118. 118.  Cole D 2015. Advantages of a polycentric approach to climate change policy. Nat. Clim. Change 5:114–18
    [Google Scholar]
  119. 119.  Biermann F, Pattberg P, van Asselt H, Zelli F 2009. The fragmentation of global governance architectures: a framework for analysis. Glob. Environ. Polit. 9:14–40
    [Google Scholar]
  120. 120.  Hall N, Persson Å 2017. Global climate adaptation governance: Why is it not legally binding?. Eur. J. Int. Relat. 24:540–66
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-030119
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error