Johannes Urpelainen parses a new report on whether green domestic policy gets us closer to international agreements on climate change:
According to the report, domestic policy action could spill over to international climate negotiations and create a critical mass of key countries willing to commit to emissions reductions. The authors conjecture that ambitious national actions will ultimately prove popular and successful in their countries because they produce co-benefits such as improved energy security and energy efficiency, and this change allows national negotiators to engage in meaningful bargaining without crippling domestic constraints.
At the same time, domestic national actions can also undermine bargaining.
David Victor argues in his recent book Global Warming Gridlock that if countries implement national policies that are unconditional, they give away their bargaining leverage. When the European Union chooses to reduce carbon dioxide emissions regardless of what other countries do, other major emitters have few incentives to negotiate with it. If Europe’s contribution to climate mitigation does not depend on what China and the United States do, the outcome could be that the latter two decide to free-ride on Europe’s actions.
Brian Merchant singles out Obama’s recently announced policy to end funding for coal projects abroad, which resulted in the World Bank and the European Investment Bank following suit:
Just like that, the outlook for coal dimmed. A new Bloomberg report details the ways that those announcements lead to crumbling support for coal financing worldwide. Investors are increasingly leary of backing an energy source that has quickly become a sort of power non grata on the international stage. Furthermore, the writing’s on the wall—climate change is so widely agreed to be a threat that investors know it’s only a matter of time before carbon-curtailing policies will start hampering coal projects, even abroad.
Of course, economic giants like China and India don’t need the World Bank to build coal, so projects will likely continue to come online for the immediate future. Then again, outlets like the South China Morning Post are reporting that it appears that the nation’s coal consumption appears to have peaked.
Update from a reader:
You quote Brian Merchant, who references the South China Morning Post:
Of course, economic giants like China and India don’t need the World Bank to build coal, so projects will likely continue to come online for the immediate future. Then again, outlets like the South China Morning Post are reporting that it appears that the nation’s coal consumption appears to have peaked.
Note that the South China Morning Post actually says the exact opposite, despite a misleading title. They are saying that the rate of increase of demand has peaked, but demand itself will continue to increase. The article predicts that demand will increase by “just over 25 per cent from last year to 2020.” If you remember your maths, they are saying that the rate of acceleration of demand, or 2nd derivative is decreasing, while demand (1st derivative) will continue to increase at least through 2020.
The Dish 