The Path Ahead in Global Climate Protection - A Stronger Emphasis on National Policy

At the recent climate change conference in Warsaw, Prof. Andreas Löschel, the head of ZEW's environmental economics department, presented the results of various climate research projects conducted at ZEW. In this Q&A, Prof. Löschel explains why he supports a hybrid approach to climate policy.

As an environmental economist you participated in the UN climate change conference in Warsaw. The conference aroused a great deal of criticism. Was it truly a failure?

In Warsaw the representatives managed to agree on the issues as well as a road map for a new climate treaty that is to be ratified in Paris in two years and which will replace the Kyoto Protocol in 2020. After years of deadlock in international climate negotiations, this certainly appears to be a success. Within the scope of the new protocol, for the first time all countries are to be involved in international climate protection – that is, not just the US, but also rising powers such as China, India, and Brazil. This is a necessary condition for climate change to be tackled in an effective manner. Yet in this connection it is also necessary to eliminate the old division between industrial countries that are required to reduce emissions, and developing countries with no obligations. For to date, this division has hindered almost all progress. It is an approach whose criteria for measuring economic output are only applicable to a limited extent. Furthermore, it overlooks a large share of emissions that could be avoided cheaply. China already has higher emissions per capita than the EU, and in 10 years it could surpass the US not only in per capita emissions, but also in cumulative emissions since the middle of the 19th   century.

Since the failure of the climate conference in Copenhagen in 2008, it has not been possible to adopt binding climate protection targets for all countries. Is this goal too ambitious?

The effort to adopt binding emissions reductions based on global targets in a top-down manner has been a colossal failure. The European and particularly German idea of setting targets for countries based on moral obligation has not been a success. Climate protection is a global public good: Emissions reductions by one country benefit all, and there is a strong incentive to act as a free rider – that is, to profit from the efforts of others, without taking action oneself. Motivating numerous countries to cooperate is important for fighting climate change. Yet this cooperation should not be based on bludgeoning others with ethical arguments, but rather based on the insight that it makes sense to address the problem together. In this connection, a very reasonable process has been sketched out: All countries have been called upon to soon state the emissions reductions they are willing to make within the scope of the new climate protection treaty. This process will allow obligations to emerge based on domestic policies and goals – that is, to arise in a bottom-up manner. A subsequent top-down process could then take the form of a review of these national obligations and their coordination, facilitating a movement toward more ambitious goals. From a current perspective, this hybrid approach appears to be more promising that past efforts, which unsuccessfully sought to impose targets from above.