1932

Abstract

International cooperation to address the threat of climate change has become more institutionally diverse over the past decade, reflecting multiple scales of governance and the growing inclusion of climate change issues in other policy arenas. Cooperation under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has continued to evolve from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the 2015 Paris Agreement, while other governmental and private sector international fora for cooperation have arisen. As the level of activity in international cooperation on climate change mitigation has increased, so too has the related scholarly literature. In this review, we synthesize the literature on international climate change cooperation and identify key policy implications, as well as those findings most relevant for the research community. Our scope includes critical evaluation of the organization and implementation of agreements and instruments, retrospective analysis of cooperative efforts, and explanations of successes and failures.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100517-023321
2018-10-05
2024-05-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/resource/10/1/annurev-resource-100517-023321.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100517-023321&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abbott KW, Snidal D 2000. Hard and soft law in international governance. Int. Organ. 54:3421–56
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AGF (Advis. Group Financ.). 2010. Report of the Secretary-General's High-Level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing Advis. Group Financ UN, New York:
  3. Aldy JE 2014. The crucial role of policy surveillance in international climate policy. Clim. Change 126:3–4279–92
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Aldy JE 2017. Policy surveillance in the G-20 fossil fuel subsidies agreement: lessons for climate policy. Clim. Change 144:197–110
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Aldy JE, Pizer WA 2016. Alternative metrics for comparing domestic climate change mitigation efforts and the emerging international climate policy architecture. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 10:13–24
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Aldy JE, Pizer W, Tavoni M, Reis LA, Akimoto K et al. 2016. Economic tools to promote transparency and comparability in the Paris Agreement. Nat. Clim. Change 6:111000–4
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Aldy JE, Stavins RN 2010. Post-Kyoto International Climate Policy: Implementing Architectures for Agreement Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  8. Aldy JE, Stavins RN 2012. Climate negotiators create an opportunity for scholars. Science 337:60981043–44
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Allen M 2003. Liability for climate change: Will it ever be possible to sue anyone for damaging the climate. ? Nature 421:891–92
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Andersen SO, Sarma KM, Taddonio KN 2007. Technology Transfer for the Ozone Layer: Lessons for Climate Change London: Earthscan
  11. Andonova LB, Betsill MM, Bulkeley H 2009. Transnational climate governance. Glob. Environ. Politics 9:252–73
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Babiker MH 2005. Climate change policy, market structure, and carbon leakage. J. Int. Econ. 65:2421–45
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Ballesteros A, Nakhooda S, Werksman J, Hurlburt K 2010. Power, responsibility, and accountability: re-thinking the legitimacy of institutions for climate finance. Clim. Law 1:261–312
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Barrett S 2003. Environment and Statecraft: The Strategy of Environmental Treaty-Making Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  15. Barrett S 2007. Why Cooperate? The Incentive to Supply Global Public Goods New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  16. Barrett S 2008. Climate treaties and the imperative of enforcement. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 24:2239–58
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Barrett S 2014. Solar geoengineering's brave new world: thoughts on the governance of an unprecedented technology. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 8:2249–69
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Beck S, Mahony M 2017. The IPCC and the politics of anticipation. Nat. Clim. Change 7:5311–13
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Bell D 2013. Climate change and human rights. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 4:3159–70
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Bell RG, Ziegler MS, Blechman B, Finlay B, Ziegler MS 2012. Building International Climate Cooperation: Lessons from the Weapons and Trade Regimes for Achieving International Climate Goals Washington, DC: World Resour. Inst
  21. Bernstein S 2005. Legitimacy in global environmental governance. J. Int. Law Int. Relat. 1:1–2139–66
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Biermann F 2010. Beyond the intergovernmental regime: recent trends in global carbon governance. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2:4284–88
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Biermann F, Pattberg P 2008. Global environmental governance: taking stock, moving forward. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 33:277–94
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Biermann F, Pattberg P, van Asselt H, Zelli F 2009. The fragmentation of global governance architectures: a framework for analysis. Glob. Environ. Politics 9:414–40
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Bodansky D 2007. Targets and timetables: good policy but bad politics. Architectures for Agreement: Addressing Global Climate Change in the Post-Kyoto World JE Aldy, RN Stavins 57–66 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Bodansky D 2009. Legal form of a new climate agreement: avenues and options Rep Pew Cent. Glob. Clim. Change Arlington, VA: https://www.c2es.org/site/assets/uploads/2009/04/new-climate-agreement-legal-form.pdf
  27. Bodansky D 2010. Introduction: climate change and human rights: unpacking the issues. Ga. J. Int. Comp. Law 38:3511–34
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Bodansky D 2011. Tale of two architectures: the once and future U.N. climate change regime. Ariz. State Law J. 43:697–712
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Bodansky D 2013. The who, what, and wherefore of geoengineering governance. Clim. Change 121:3539–51
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Bodansky D 2016.a The legal character of the Paris Agreement. Rev. Eur. Comp. Int. Environ. Law 25:2142–50
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Bodansky D 2016.b The Paris Climate Change agreement: A new hope. ? Am. J. Int. Law 110:2288–319
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Bodansky D, Diringer E 2010. The evolution of multilateral regimes: implications for climate change. Advancing the Effort Against Climate Change Arlington, VA: Pew Cent. Glob. Clim. Change
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Bodansky DM, Hoedl SA, Metcalf GE, Stavins RN 2016. Facilitating linkage of climate policies through the Paris outcome. Clim. Policy 16:8956–72
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Böhringer C 2003. The Kyoto Protocol: a review and perspectives. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 19:3451–66
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Bosetti V, Carraro C, Sgobbi A, Tavoni M 2010. Modeling economic impacts of alternative international climate policy architectures: a quantitative and comparative assessment of architectures for agreement. See Aldy & Stavins 2010 715–52
  36. Branstetter LG, Fisman R, Foley CF 2006. Do stronger intellectual property rights increase international technology transfer? Empirical evidence from U.S. firm-level panel data. Q. J. Econ. 121:1321–49
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Breidenich C, Bodansky D 2009. Measurement, reporting and verification in a post-2012 climate agreement Rep Pew Cent. Glob. Clim. Change Arlington, VA:
  38. Brousseau E, Dedeurwaerdere T, Jouvet P-A, Willinger M, Willinger Marc 2012. Global Environmental Commons: Analytical and Political Challenges in Building Governance Mechanisms Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  39. Brunner S, Flachsland C, Marschinski R 2012. Credible commitment in carbon policy. Clim. Policy 12:2255–71
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Bulkeley H, Andonova LB, Bäckstrand K, Betsill MM, Compagnon D et al. 2012. Governing climate change transnationally: assessing the evidence from a survey of sixty initiatives. Environ. Plan. C Politics Space 30:4591–612
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Burtraw D, Palmer K, Munnings C, Weber P, Woerman M 2013. Linking by degrees: incremental alignment of cap-and-trade markets Rep. DP 13-04, Resour. Future Washington, DC:
  42. Cao J 2010. Reconciling human development and climate protection: a multistage hybrid climate policy architecture. See Aldy & Stavins 2010 563–98
  43. Castro P 2012. Does the CDM discourage emission reduction targets in advanced developing countries. ? Clim. Policy 12:2198–218
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Cecys K 2010. MRV: a survey of reporting and review in multilateral regimes Brief, Pew Cent. Glob. Clim. Change Arlington, VA: https://www.c2es.org/site/assets/uploads/2010/12/mrv-survey-reporting-review-multilateral-regimes.pdf
  45. Chan G 2015. Essays on energy technology innovation policy PhD Thesis, Harvard Univ. Cambridge, MA:
  46. Chan G, Carraro C, Edenhofer O, Kolstad C, Stavins R 2016. Reforming the IPCC's assessment of climate change economics. Clim. Change Econ. 7:1640001
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Chan G, Huenteler J 2015. Financing wind energy deployment in China through the Clean Development Mechanism See Chan 2015 145–69 https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/17467190
  48. Czarnecki R, Guilanpour K 2009. The adaptation fund after Poznan. Carbon Clim. Law Rev. 3:179–88
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Dechezleprêtre A, Glachant M, Ménière Y 2008. The clean development mechanism and the international diffusion of technologies: an empirical study. Energy Policy 36:41273–83
    [Google Scholar]
  50. de Coninck H, Fischer C, Newell RG, Ueno T 2008. International technology-oriented agreements to address climate change. Energy Policy 36:1335–56
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Depledge J 2006. The opposite of learning: ossification in the climate change regime. Glob. Environ. Politics 6:11–22
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Dubash NK, Rajamani L 2010. Beyond Copenhagen: next steps. Clim. Policy 10:6593–99
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Ellerman AD 2010. The EU emission trading scheme: a prototype global system? See Aldy & Stavins 2010, pp. 88–118
  54. Ellerman AD, Marcantonini C, Zaklan A 2016. The European Union emissions trading system: ten years and counting. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 10:189–107
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Ellis J, Moarif S 2009. GHG mitigation actions: MRV issues and options Paris: OECD
  56. Falkner R 2016. The Paris Agreement and the new logic of international climate politics. Int. Aff. 92:51107–25
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Falkner R, Stephan H, Vogler J 2010. International climate policy after Copenhagen: towards a ‘building blocks’ approach. Glob. Policy 1:3252–62
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Florini A 2011. The International Energy Agency in global energy governance. Glob. Policy 2:40–50
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Frankel JA 2005. You're getting warmer: the most feasible path for addressing global climate change does run through Kyoto. Trade and the Environment in the Perspective of the EU Enlargement M Tamborra, J Maxwell 37–58 Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
    [Google Scholar]
  60. GCF (Green Clim. Fund). 2018. Resource mobilization Green Clim. Fund, Incheon Korea: http://www.greenclimate.fund/how-we-work/resource-mobilization
  61. Ger. Emiss. Trading Auth. 2016.a Categorization of INDCs in the Light of Art. 6 of the Paris Agreement Berlin: Ger. Environ. Agency
  62. Ger. Emiss. Trading Auth. 2016.b Robust Accounting of International Transfers under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement—Preliminary Findings Berlin: Ger. Environ. Agency
  63. Grossman DA 2003. Warming up to a not-so-radical idea: Tort-based climate change litigation. Columbia J. Environ. Law 28:1–62
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Guzman AT, Meyer TL 2010. International soft law. J. Leg. Anal. 2:1171–225
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Haites E 2011. Climate change finance. Clim. Policy 11:3963–69
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Hall BH, Helmers C 2010. The role of patent protection in (clean/green) technology transfer. St. Clara Comput. High Technol. Law J. 26:4487–532
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Hannam PM, Liao Z, Davis SJ, Oppenheimer M 2015. Developing country finance in a post-2020 global climate agreement. Nat. Clim. Change 5:11983–87
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Hassett KA, Mathur A, Metcalf GE 2009. The incidence of a U.S. carbon tax: a lifetime and regional analysis. Energy J 30:2155–77
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Hayashi D, Michaelowa A 2013. Standardization of baseline and additionality determination under the CDM. Clim. Policy 2:13191–209
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Heitzig J, Lessmann K, Zou Y 2011. Self-enforcing strategies to deter free-riding in the climate change mitigation game and other repeated public good games. PNAS 108:3815739–44
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Helfer LR, Austin G 2011. Human Rights and Intellectual Property: Mapping the Global Interface. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Helm D 2010. Climate-change policy: Why has so little been achieved. ? In The Economics and Politics of Climate Change D Helm, C Hepburn 9–35 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Heutel G, Moreno-Cruz J, Ricke K 2016. Climate engineering economics. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 8:99–118
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Hoffmann MJ 2005. Ozone Depletion and Climate Change: Constructing a Global Response Albany, NY: State Univ. NY Press
  75. Hoffmann MJ 2011. Climate Governance at the Crossroads: Experimenting with a Global Response After Kyoto Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  76. Hurwitz MM, Fleming EL, Newman PA, Li F, Liang Q 2016. Early action on HFCs mitigates future atmospheric change. Environ. Res. Lett. 11:11114019
    [Google Scholar]
  77. IEA (Int. Energy Agency). 2011. World Energy Outlook Paris: OECD
  78. Jacoby HD, Babiker MH, Paltsev S, Reilly JM 2010. Sharing the burden of GHG reductions. See Aldy & Stavins 2010 753–85
  79. Jacoby HD, Chen Y-HH, Flannery BP 2017. Informing transparency in the Paris Agreement: the role of economic models. Clim. Policy 17:7873–90
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Jaffe J, Ranson M, Stavins RN 2009. Linking tradable permit systems: a key element of emerging international climate policy architecture. Ecol. Law Q. 36:4789–808
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 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 5:11977–82
    [Google Scholar]
  82. JRC (Joint Res. Cent.). 2013. Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR) Eur. Comm., Joint Res. Cent Brussels: Updated Oct. 30, 2017. http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
  83. Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen SI, McGee J 2013. Legitimacy in an era of fragmentation: the case of global climate governance. Glob. Environ. Politics 13:356–78
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Kemp L 2017. US-proofing the Paris Climate Agreement. Clim. Policy 17:186–101
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Kennel CF, Briggs S, Victor DG 2016. Making climate science more relevant. Science 354:6311421–22
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Keohane RO, Victor DG 2011. The regime complex for climate change. Perspect. Politics 9:17–23
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Knox-Hayes J, Levy DL 2011. The politics of carbon disclosure as climate governance. Strateg. Organ. 9:191–99
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Kolstad C, Ulph A 2008. Learning and international environmental agreements. Clim. Change 89:1–2125–41
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Lees E 2017. Responsibility and liability for climate loss and damage after Paris. Clim. Policy 17:159–70
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Lema R, Lema A 2012. Technology transfer? The rise of China and India in green technology sectors. Innov. Dev. 2:123–44
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Limon M 2009. Human rights and climate change: constructing a case for political action. Harv. Environ. Law Rev. 33:439–76
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Lord R, Goldberg S, Rajamani L, Brunnée J 2011. Climate Change Liability Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  93. Lutter R 2000. Developing countries’ greenhouse emissions: uncertainty and implications for participation in the Kyoto Protocol. Energy J 21:493–120
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Malerba F, Montobbio F 2003. Exploring factors affecting international technological specialization: the role of knowledge flows and the structure of innovative activity. J. Evol. Econ. 13:4411–34
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Mallett A 2013. Technology cooperation for sustainable energy: a review of pathways: technology cooperation for sustainable energy. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Energy Environ. 2:2234–50
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Meckling JO, Chung GY 2009. Sectoral approaches for a post-2012 climate regime: a taxonomy. Clim. Policy 9:6652–68
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Mehling M, Haites E 2009. Mechanisms for linking emissions trading schemes. Clim. Policy 9:2169–84
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Mehling M, Metcalf G, Stavins R 2017. Linking heterogeneous climate policies (consistent with the Paris Agreement) Discuss. Pap. ES 17-6, Harv. Proj. Clim. Agreem., Harv. Univ
  99. Metcalf GE, Weisbach D 2009. The design of a carbon tax. Harv. Environ. Law Rev. 33:2499–556
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Metcalf GE, Weisbach D 2012. Linking policies when tastes differ: global climate policy in a heterogeneous world. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 6:1110–29
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Millard-Ball A, Ortolano L 2010. Constructing carbon offsets: the obstacles to quantifying emission reductions. Energy Policy 38:1533–46
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Minx JC, Callaghan M, Lamb WF, Garard J, Edenhofer O 2017. Learning about climate change solutions in the IPCC and beyond. Environ. Sci. Policy 77:252–59
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Molina M, Zaelke D, Sarma KM, Andersen SO, Ramanathan V, Kaniaru D 2009. Reducing abrupt climate change risk using the Montreal Protocol and other regulatory actions to complement cuts in CO2 emissions. PNAS 106:4920616–21
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Moncel R, Joffe P, McCall K, Levin K 2011. Building the climate change regime: survey and analysis of approaches Rep., World Resour. Inst., UN Environ. Prog Washington, DC:
  105. Moncel R, van Asselt H 2012. All hands on deck! Mobilizing climate change action beyond the UNFCCC. Rev. Eur. Community Int. Environ. Law 21:3163–76
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Newell RG 2010.a International climate technology strategies. See Aldy & Stavins 2010 403–38
  107. Newell RG 2010.b The role of markets and policies in delivering innovation for climate change mitigation. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 26:2253–69
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Newell RG, Pizer WA, Raimi D 2013. Carbon markets 15 years after Kyoto: lessons learned, new challenges. J. Econ. Perspect. 27:1123–46
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Nordhaus W 2015. Climate clubs: overcoming free-riding in international climate policy. Am. Econ. Rev. 105:41339–70
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Nordhaus WD 2007. A review of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. J. Econ. . Lit 45:3686–702
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Nordhaus WD 2008. A Question of Balance: Weighing the Options on Global Warming Policies New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  112. Oberthür S, Bodle R 2016. Legal form and nature of the Paris outcome. Clim. Law 6:1–240–57
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Osofsky HM 2012. Climate change and crises of international law: possibilities for geographic reenvisioning. Case West. Reserv. J. Int. Law 44:1–2423–33
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Parson EA 2014. Climate engineering in global climate governance: implications for participation and linkage. Transnatl. Environ. Law 3:189–110
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Paterson M, Hoffmann M, Betsill M, Bernstein S 2014. The micro foundations of policy diffusion towards complex global governance: an analysis of the transnational carbon emission trading network. Comp. Political Stud. 37:3–4420–49
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Pattberg P, Stripple J 2008. Beyond the public and private divide: remapping transnational climate governance in the 21st century. Int. Environ. Agreem. Politics Law Econ. 8:4367–88
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Peters GP, Andrew RM, Canadell JG, Fuss S, Jackson RB et al. 2017. Key indicators to track current progress and future ambition of the Paris Agreement. Nat. Clim. Change 7:2118–22
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Pfeifer S, Sullivan R 2008. Public policy, institutional investors and climate change: a UK case-study. Clim. Change 89:3–4245–62
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Pinkse J, Kolk A 2009. International Business and Global Climate Change Abingdon, UK: Routledge
  120. Ranson M, Stavins RN 2013. A post-Durban climate policy architecture based on linkage of cap-and-trade systems. Chic. J. Int. Law 13:2403–38
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Ranson M, Stavins RN 2015. Linkage of greenhouse gas emissions trading systems: learning from experience. Clim. Policy 16:3284–300
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Raustiala K 2005. Form and substance in international agreements. Am. J. Int. Law 99:3581–614
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Rogelj J, den Elzen M, Höhne N, Fransen T, Fekete H et al. 2016. Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2°C. Nature 534:7609631–39
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Román M 2010. Governing from the middle: the C40 Cities Leadership Group. Corp. Gov. 10:173–84
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Sabel C, Victor D 2016. An Evolutionary Approach to Governing Global Problems: Climate Policy After Paris Muscatine, IA: Stanley Found
  126. Seres S, Haites E, Murphy K 2009. Analysis of technology transfer in CDM projects: an update. Energy Policy 37:114919–26
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Shishlov I, Morel R, Bellassen V 2016. Compliance of the parties to the Kyoto Protocol in the first commitment period. Clim. Policy 16:6768–82
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Smith JB, Dickinson T, Donahue JDB, Burton I, Haites E et al. 2011. Development and climate change adaptation funding: coordination and integration. Clim. Policy 11:3987–1000
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Stavins R, Ji Z, Brewer T, Conte Grand M, den Elzen M et al. 2014. International cooperation: agreements & instruments. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change O Edenhofer, R Pichs-Madruga, Y Sokona, E Farahani, S Kadner et al.1001–82 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Stavins RN 2011. The problem of the commons: still unsettled after 100 years. Am. Econ. Rev. 101:181–108
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Stern N 2007. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Stewart RB, Oppenheimer M, Rudyk B 2017. Building blocks: a strategy for near-term action within the new global climate framework. Clim. Change 144:11–13
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Stewart RB, Wiener JB 2003. Reconstructing Climate Policy: Beyond Kyoto Washington, DC: AEI Press
  134. Thompson A 2006. Management under anarchy: the international politics of climate change. Clim. Change 78:17–29
    [Google Scholar]
  135. UNEP (UN Environ. Prog.). 2017. The Emissions Gap Report 2017 Nairobi: UNEP
  136. UNEP Risoe Cent. 2017. UNEP DTU CDM/JI Pipeline Analysis and Database Updated March 1, 2018. http://www.cdmpipeline.org/
  137. UNFCCC (UN Framew. Conv. Clim. Change). 2012. Time series—Annex I UN Climate Change Database, updated 2014. http://di.unfccc.int/time_series
  138. UNFCCC (UN Framew. Conv. Clim. Change). 2016. Aggregate effect of the intended nationally determined contributions: an update Rep. FCCC/CP/2016/2, UNFCCC, Marrakech. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2016/cop22/eng/02.pdf
  139. Urpelainen J, Van de Graaf T 2015. The International Renewable Energy Agency: a success story in institutional innovation. Int. Environ. Agreem. Politics Law Econ. 15:2159–77
    [Google Scholar]
  140. van Asselt H 2016. The role of non-state actors in reviewing ambition, implementation, and compliance under the Paris Agreement. Clim. Law 6:1–291–108
    [Google Scholar]
  141. van Asselt H, Gupta J 2009. Stretching too far: developing countries and the role of flexibility mechanisms beyond Kyoto. Stanf. Environ. Law J. 28:2311–80
    [Google Scholar]
  142. van de Graaf T, Westphal K 2011. The G8 and G20 as global steering committees for energy: opportunities and constraints. Glob. Policy 2:19–30
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Velders GJM, Andersen SO, Daniel JS, Fahey DW, McFarland M 2007. The importance of the Montreal Protocol in protecting climate. PNAS 104:124814–19
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Velders GJM, Ravishankara AR, Miller MK, Molina MJ, Alcamo J et al. 2012. Preserving Montreal Protocol climate benefits by limiting HFCs. Science 335:6071922–23
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Victor DG 2004. The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the Struggle to Slow Global Warming Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  146. Victor DG, House JC, Joy S 2005. A Madisonian approach to climate policy. Science 309:57421820–21
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Weitzman ML 2007. A review of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. J. Econ. Lit. 45:3703–24
    [Google Scholar]
  148. Werksman J 2010. Legal symmetry and legal differentiation under a future deal on climate change. Clim. Policy 10:6672–77
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Winkler H, Mantlana B, Letete T 2017. Transparency of action and support in the Paris Agreement. Clim. Policy 17:7853–72
    [Google Scholar]
  150. World Bank Group. 2016. State and trends of carbon pricing Rep World Bank Group Clim. Change Washington, DC:
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100517-023321
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100517-023321
Loading

Data & Media 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