Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
MTZ-Fachkongress

Antriebe und Energiesysteme von morgen


Austausch von Automobil- und Energiewirtschaft

Am 14./15. Mai geht es in Chemnitz um die Mobilitätswende durch Elektro- und Wasserstofffahrzeuge.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Introduction Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2016 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

2. The Need for an Integrated Economic Assessment of Climate Policy Options

verfasst von : Martin Kowarsch

Erschienen in: A Pragmatist Orientation for the Social Sciences in Climate Policy

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This chapter indicates the need for appropriate integrated economic assessments to support climate policy-making. A normative point of departure for this is John Dewey’s concept of a scientifically well-informed, collective regulation of indirect consequences of human actions – as the essence of “the public” (Sect. 2.1). From this Deweyan philosophy of deliberative democracy, a few (widely accepted) general norms for the role of the desired scientific expertise in policy can also be derived: sound science, policy-relevance, good communication and political legitimacy. Employing Dewey’s political philosophy, I argue that integrated economic expertise, if it complies with the general norms for expertise in policy, is urgently needed to adequately understand and design complex climate policy where so much is at stake for so many (present and future) people (Sect. 2.2). This is particularly, although not exclusively, true for climate change mitigation where many socially relevant aspects are still poorly understood. Section 2.3 introduces the highly influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its integrated economic assessments, particularly those of IPCC Working Group III, on which this book will focus.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel Introduction
Nächstes Kapitel Fundamental Perils for Scientific Assessments
Fußnoten
1
See also Kitcher (2001, Chap. 5). This will be discussed in Chaps. 5 and 6 of this book.
 
2
Recommendable introductions to Dewey’s political philosophy in general are offered by Brown (2009), Putnam (1992) and Posner (2003).
 
3
Feenberg (1999) made one of the more recent attempts to describe the public as constituted by the experience of indirect consequences. This also shows that Dewey’s thoughts on democracy, despite their age, are still highly interesting to contemporary scholars.
 
4
Dewey’s theory of democracy is a liberal one, but should not be misinterpreted as libertarian. Instead, Dewey’s approach seems to imply a welfare state.
 
5
With this, Dewey’s book (1927) was a reply to journalist Walter Lippmann who postulated that in modern, big and complex societies, direct participation of the people is no longer possible; this is usually called a “realist theory” of democracy (Brown 2009, pp. 138f). For Dewey, without such participation, democracy cannot be realised at all, and political power cannot be controlled.
 
6
Dahl (1989, p. 311) excellently summarises three core reasons why democracy in general is superior to all other possible alternatives: “First, it promotes freedom as no feasible alternative can: freedom in the form of individual and collective self-determination, in the degree of moral autonomy it encourages and allows, and in a broad range of other and more particular freedoms that are inherent in the democratic process, or are necessary prerequisites for its existence, or exist because people who support the idea and practice of the democratic process are, as a plain historical fact, also inclined to give generous support to other freedoms as well. Second, the democratic process promotes human development, not least in the capacity for exercising self-determination, moral autonomy, and responsibility for one’s choices. Finally, it is the surest way (if by no means a perfect one) by which human beings can protect and advance the interests and goods they share with others.” Dahl (1989, p. 312) adds that democracy is not only an important goal, but also an important means of achieving distributive justice.
 
7
Posner’s line of critique is thus again related to the disputed optimism or pessimism regarding the human capability to participate in deliberative democracies; more pessimistic views of human nature in that regard – as Posner’s – would put more emphasis on the need for the institutional and legal control of policymakers and political power in general.
 
8
It is not “natural” in my view to simply and exclusively follow one’s own interests, as Posner mistakenly suggests; see also Chap. 8 below.
 
9
For such an ethical claim see, e.g., Kowarsch and Gösele (2012).
 
10
E.g., Chap. 6 will introduce Dewey’s philosophy of scientific enquiry underlying his philosophy of the public.
 
11
Neglected aspects of current developments in existing democracies and in the political science literature include specific issues related to pluralism, representation, (global) governance, international co-operation, distributive justice, differentiated societies and (modern) technologies. These issues, however, are not particularly relevant to my argument in the present chapter.
 
12
When I am talking about the Deweyan idea of democracy in the following sections and chapters, I am solely referring to this core part of his theory, unless stated otherwise. This core part seems compatible with several richer concepts of democracy.
 
13
See Sect. 3.​1 for the need for a transformation and translation of scientific results for policymakers and the public; see also Habermas (1968) and Grundmann and Stehr (2011).
 
14
This can be understood in the broad sense of the preference of specific, disputable policies over others, either directly or indirectly.
 
15
In order to avoid one-sided presentations of scientific results, the scientific advice needs to be comprehensive with regard to the existing scientific assumptions and findings in the literature on a specific policy-related issue.
 
16
See, e.g., IPCC (2008), Cash et al. (2003), Creutzig et al. (2012, pp. 66–68).
 
17
See http://​www.​hks.​harvard.​edu/​gea/​, accessed 31 Aug 2014, and the summary paper by Cash et al. (2003), including the definitions of their general norms.
 
18
For an overview of the current knowledge on the physics, economic issues and policies of climate change, see IPCC (2014c), Edenhofer et al. (2013), Wagner and Weitzman (2015) and IPCC (2014b, Chaps. 1–4).
 
19
I can recommend this section for an overview of the evidence for current climate change. See particularly Table SPM.1.
 
20
“Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90 % of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence), with only about 1 % stored in the atmosphere. […] The ocean has absorbed about 30 % of the emitted anthropogenic CO2” between 1750 and 2011 (IPCC 2014c, SPM).
 
21
The IPCC (2007c, p. 818) defines “mitigation” as “implementing policies to reduce GHG emissions and enhance sinks” through “[t]echnological change and substitution that reduce resource inputs and emissions per unit of output.” A “mitigation target” (in contrast to “adaptation”), thus, usually refers to the mitigation of anthropogenic GHG emissions and comprises targets concerning global temperature, radiative forcing, atmospheric concentration, emissions or fossil fuel budgets, relative emissions reduction, etc. I am not fully satisfied with this narrow, possibly biased definition of mitigation as it, inter alia, excludes many geo-engineering options that, theoretically, could also help mitigate climate change and its bio-physical impacts. Nonetheless, I will keep to this definition in this book in order to avoid confusion.
 
22
Under ideal conditions, consumption in 2100 would only be reduced by 4.8 % compared with current levels for a very ambitious mitigation scenario, and the reduction of the annualised consumption growth rate for the same scenario would only be 0,06 % (IPCC 2014b, Table SPM.2). See Box TS.9 for an explanation of the meaning of ‘mitigation costs.’
 
23
The “IEA estimates that subsidies that artificially reduce the price of fossil-fuels amounted to USD 409 billion in 2010 – almost USD 110 billion higher than in 2009,” see http://​www.​oecd.​org/​newsroom/​oecdandiearecomm​endreformingfoss​il-fuelsubsidiestoi​mprovetheeconomy​andtheenvironmen​t.​htm (accessed 14 Aug 2014).
 
25
This implies that the “climate problem” is to be regarded as more than only “global warming,” and that there are further adverse consequences of the human interference with the climate system particularly through anthropogenic GHG emissions and the change of GHG sinks. “Since the beginning of the industrial era, oceanic uptake of CO2 has resulted in acidification of the ocean; the pH of ocean surface water has decreased by 0.1 (high confidence), corresponding to a 26 % increase in acidity, measured as hydrogen ion concentration” (IPCC 2014c, SPM).
 
26
See, e.g., Gupta and van der Grijp (2014) and Edenhofer et al. (2012).
 
27
Similar arguments can be found in Edenhofer et al. (2012) and the IPCC WG III report (IPCC 2014b, Chaps. 1–4). In fact, there are also political incentives in this direction.
 
28
This statement was made during his talk at MCC Berlin in May 2014, see http://​www.​mcc-berlin.​net/​en/​events/​event-detail/​article/​weitzman-on-geonengineering.​html (accessed 30 Mar 2015).
 
29
The FCCC defines the “adverse effects of climate change” as “changes in the physical environment or biota resulting from climate change, which have significant deleterious effects on the composition, resilience or productivity of natural and managed ecosystems or on the operation of socio-economic systems or on human health and welfare” (UN 1992).
 
30
The FCCC states “that various actions to address climate change can be justified economically in their own right and can also help in solving other environmental problems,” “that responses to climate change should be coordinated with social and economic development in an integrated manner with a view to avoiding adverse impacts on the latter, taking into full account the legitimate priority needs of developing countries for the achievement of sustained economic growth and the eradication of poverty,” and that the objective of the FCCC “should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner” (UN 1992).
 
32
See, e.g., Dimitrov (2010) for the COP-15, Szarka (2011) for the changing and interrelated roles of the US and the EU, or Rong (2010) for the positions of developing countries.
 
33
“Conflict” is understood in a very broad sense in this book, including all kinds of disagreements, trade-offs or aspects that are not easily harmonised.
 
34
Referencing certain moral standpoints in climate negotiations is, however, sometimes used as an excuse for strong national economic or economy-related interests (Lange et al. 2010), as these (pseudo) moral standpoints sound much more appropriate as a justification for the political decisions taken.
 
35
In the nineteenth century several academics had already researched the possible climatic effects of GHGs in the atmosphere.
 
36
Wagner and Weitzman (2015) as well as the IPCC (2014b) clearly argue that climate change mitigation in particular is all but trivial, and gives rise to several substantial risks and uncertainties as well as huge complexity. Recently, there have been calls for more social-science research on climate change, e.g., Agrawal et al. (2012), Weaver et al. (2014), Victor (2015) and the EU research funding priorities (http://​ec.​europa.​eu/​programmes/​horizon2020/​en/​h2020-section/​societal-challenges, accessed 31 Mar 2015).
 
37
As an extreme, hypothetical example of the relevance of economic knowledge for climate policy, imagine two different fictitious worlds. In one the economic studies show that an ambitious global climate change mitigation target would cost 1 % of the global GDP by the end of the century. In the other it would reach 50 % of the global GDP. This would clearly make a difference to the social acceptance of ambitious mitigation options, other things being equal. See also Beckerman (2011, p. 13). He further states (p. 33): “however compelling is the ethical appeal of certain normative propositions, much will still depend on […] economics.”
 
38
Dewey (1927) elaborates on these characteristic capacities of the scientific community. Reliability necessarily requires transparency of the epistemic status and the context of scientific statements (see also Sect. 3.​1 and Chap. 6).
 
39
One should also consider the meta-level, including social-science and philosophical research on the science-policy interface and assessment-making. Parker (2014) specifies social-science research needs regarding climate change. She states: “So far, however, the social sciences have been somewhat slow to engage with the issue of climate change” (Parker 2014, 31).
 
40
There is a need for integrated economic analysis regarding the understanding of climate impacts and also regarding adaptation options.
 
41
Some examples can be found in IPCC (2014b).
 
42
See, e.g., Siegmeier et al. (2015).
 
43
See, e.g., Jakob and Steckel (2014) and IPCC (2014b).
 
45
The IPCC “is open to all member countries of the United Nations (UN) and WMO. Currently 195 countries are members of the IPCC. Governments participate in the review process and the plenary Sessions, where major decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau Members, including the Chair, are also elected during the plenary Sessions” (source: http://​www.​ipcc.​ch/​organization/​organization.​shtml; accessed 30 Mar 2015).
 
46
The relatively small IPCC Secretariat has the task of coordinating the IPCC work and liaises with the governments.
 
47
The core idea, i.e. assessing the scientific literature and involving stakeholders, is also realised in many national science-policy bodies (see Beck 2009, pp. 16 and 24).
 
49
A graphical tour through the IPCC history and the development of the ARs is provided by Jones (2013).
 
51
The IPCC does not conduct new research or monitor climate-related data. Yet, scientific assessment-making, i.e., the synthesis exercise, itself can be regarded as a fully respectable and serious scientific task on its own (see Part IV below).
 
52
Some academic and political motives, as well as contexts for the foundation of the IPCC, are discussed in Hecht and Tirpak (1995), Agrawala (1998a and b), Beck (2009) and Bolin (2007).
 
Literatur
Adler, Caroline E., and Katharina Rietig. 2013. Quo vadis? The state of social sciences and climate and global environmental change in Europe. In world social science report 2013: Changing global environments, ed. ISSC and UNESCO, 158–167. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
Agrawala, Shardul. 1998a. Context and early origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climatic Change 39(4): 605–620.CrossRef
Agrawala, Shardul. 1998b. Structural and process history of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climatic Change 39(4): 621–642.CrossRef
Agrawal, Arun, Maria C. Lemos, Ben Orlove, and Jesse Ribot. 2012. Cool heads for a hot world: Social sciences under a changing sky. Global Environmental Change 22(2): 329–331.CrossRef
Beck, Silke. 2009. Das Klimaexperiment und der IPCC. Schnittstellen zwischen Wissenschaft und Politik in den internationalen Beziehungen. Marburg: Metropolis.
Beckerman, Wilfred. 2011. Economics as applied ethics. Value judgements in welfare economics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bodansky, Daniel. 2001. The history of the global climate change regime. In International relations and global climate change, ed. Urs Luterbacher and Detlef Sprinz, 23–40. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bolin, Bert. 2007. A history of the science and politics of climate change: The role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Brennan, Geoffrey. 2009. Climate change: A rational choice politics view. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 53(3): 309–326.CrossRef
Brown, Mark B. 2009. Science in democracy: Expertise, institutions, and representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRef
Cash, David W., William C. Clark, Frank Alcock, Nancy M. Dickson, Noelle Eckley, David H. Guston, Jill Jäger, and Ronald B. Mitchell. 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. PNAS 100(14): 8086–8091.CrossRef
Creutzig, Felix, Christoph von Stechow, David Klein, Carol Hunsberger, Nico Bauer, Alexander Popp, and Ottmar Edenhofer. 2012. Can bioenergy assessments deliver? Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy 1(2): 65–82.CrossRef
Dahl, Robert. 1989. Democracy and its critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Dannenberg, Astrid, Bodo Sturm, and Carsten Vogt. 2010. Do equity preferences matter for climate negotiators? An experimental investigation. Environmental and Resource Economics 47(1): 91–109.CrossRef
Dewey, John. 1927. The public and its problems. New York: Henry Hold & Co.
Dietz, Simon, Cameron J. Hepburn, and Nicolas Stern. 2009. Economics, ethics and climate change. In Arguments for a better world: Essays in honour of Amartya Sen. Volume 2: Society, institutions and development, ed. Kaushik Basu and Ravi Kanbur, 365–386. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dimitrov, Radoslav. 2010. Inside Copenhagen: The state of climate governance. Global Environmental Politics 10(2): 18–24.CrossRef
Edenhofer, Ottmar, Brigitte Knopf, Jan Steckel, and Gunnar Luderer. 2008. The honest broker: Stuck half way through. Nature 452: 531–532.CrossRef
Edenhofer, Ottmar, Brigitte Knopf, Terry Barker, Lavinia Baumstark, Elie Bellevrat, Bertrand Chateau, Patrick Criqui, et al. 2010. The economics of low stabilization: Model comparison of mitigation strategies and costs. The Energy Journal 31(Special Issue 1: The Economics of Low Stabilization): 11–48.
Edenhofer, Ottmar, Johannes Wallacher, Hermann Lotze-Campen, Michael Reder, Brigitte Knopf, and Johannes Müller (eds.). 2012. Climate change, justice and sustainability: Linking climate and development policy. Dordrecht: Springer.
Falkner, Robert, Hannes Stephan, and John Vogler. 2010. International climate policy after Copenhagen: Towards a ‘building blocks’ approach. Global Policy 1(3): 252–262.CrossRef
Feenberg, Andrew. 1999. Questioning technology. London: Routledge.
Grundmann, Reiner, and Nico Stehr. 2011. Die Macht der Erkenntnis. Berlin: Suhrkamp. English edition: Stehr, Nico, and Reiner Grundmann. 2011. Experts: The knowledge and power of expertise. London: Routledge.
Gupta, Joyeeta, and Nicolien van der Grijp. 2014. Mainstreaming climate change in development cooperation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1968. Technik und Wissenschaft als Ideologie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. English edition: Habermas, Jürgen. 1971. Toward a rational society. Boston: Beacon Press.
Hecht, Alan D., and Dennis Tirpak. 1995. Framework agreement on climate change: A scientific and policy history. Climatic Change 29(4): 371–402.CrossRef
IPCC. eds. Susan Solomon, Dahe Qin, Martin Manning, Zhenlin Chen, Melinda Marquis, Kristen B. Averyt, Melinda Tignor, and Henry L. Miller. 2007a. Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
IPCC. eds. Martin Parry, Osvaldo Canziani, Jean Palutikof, Paul van der Linden, and Clair Hanson. 2007b. Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaption, vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
IPCC. eds. Bert Metz, Ogunlade Davidson, Peter Bosch, Rutu Dave, and Leo Meyer. 2007c. Climate change 2007: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
IPCC. eds. Thomas Stocker, Dahe Qin, Gian-Kasper Plattner, Melinda Tignor, Simon Allen, Judith Boschung, and Alexander Nauels, et al. 2013. Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Working Group I contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
IPCC. eds. Christopher B. Field, Vicente Barros, David Jon Dokken, Katharine J. Mach, Michael D. Mastrandrea, T. Elen Bilir, and Monalisa Chatterjee, et al. 2014a. Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaption, and vulnerability. Working Group II contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Part A: Global and sectoral aspects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
IPCC. eds. Ottmar Edenhofer, Ramón Pichs-Madruga, Youba Sokona, Ellie Farahani, Susanne Kadner, Kristin Seyboth, and Anna Adler, et al. 2014b. Climate change 2014 – Mitigation of climate change: Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
IPCC. eds. Core Writing Team, Rajendra K. Pachauri, and Leo A. Meyer. 2014c. Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jäger, Jill, and Tim O’Riordan. 1996. The history of climate change science and politics. In Politics of climate change: A European perspective, ed. Tim O’Riordan and Jill Jäger, 1–31. London: Routledge.
Jakob, Michael, and Jan C. Steckel. 2014. How climate change mitigation could harm development in poor countries. WIREs Climate Change 5(2): 161–168.CrossRef
Jones, Nicola. 2013. Climate assessments: 25 years of the IPCC. Nature 501, News Feature: 298–299.
Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Knopf, Brigitte, Martin Kowarsch, Christian Flachsland, and Ottmar Edenhofer. 2012a. The 2°C target reconsidered. In Climate change, justice and sustainability: Linking climate and development policy, ed. Ottmar Edenhofer, Johannes Wallacher, Hermann Lotze-Campen, Michael Reder, Brigitte Knopf, and Johannes Müller, 121–138. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRef
Knopf, Brigitte, Martin Kowarsch, Ottmar Edenhofer, and Gunnar Luderer. 2012b. Climate change mitigation: Options, costs and risks. In Climate change, justice and sustainability: Linking climate and development policy, ed. Ottmar Edenhofer, Johannes Wallacher, Hermann Lotze-Campen, Michael Reder, Brigitte Knopf, and Johannes Müller, 139–150. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRef
Kowarsch, Martin, and Andreas Gösele. 2012. Triangle of justice. In Climate change, justice and sustainability: Linking climate and development policy, ed. Ottmar Edenhofer, Johannes Wallacher, Hermann Lotze-Campen, Michael Reder, Brigitte Knopf, and Johannes Müller, 73–90. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRef
Lange, Andreas, Andreas Löschel, Carsten Vogt, and Andreas Ziegler. 2010. On the self-interested use of equity in international climate negotiations. European Economic Review 54(3): 359–375.CrossRef
Lenton, Timothy, Hermann Held, Elmar Kriegler, Jim Hall, Wolfgang Lucht, Stefan Rahmstorf, and Hans Joachim Schellnhuber. 2008. Tipping elements in the earth’s climate system. PNAS 105(6): 1786–1793.CrossRef
Olivier, Jos, Greet Janssens-Maenhout, Jeroen Peters, and Julian Wilson. 2011. Long term trend in global CO 2 emissions 2011 report. The Hague: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
Parker, Wendy. 2014. Climate change. In Philosophy of social science: A new introduction, ed. Nancy Cartwright and Eleonora Montuschi, 31–37. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Posner, Richard A. 2003. Law, pragmatism, and democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Posner, Richard A. 2004. John Dewey and the intersection of democracy and law. In Dewey, pragmatism, and economic methodology, ed. Elias L. Khalil, 167–186. London: Routledge.
Putnam, Hilary. 1992. Renewing philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rong, Fang. 2010. Understanding developing country stances on post-2012 climate change negotiations: Comparative analysis of Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and South Africa. Energy Policy 38(8): 4582–4591.CrossRef
Slyke, Van, M. David, Rosemary O’Leary, and Soonhee Kim. 2010. Conclusion: Challenges and opportunities, crosscutting themes, and thoughts on the future of public administration. In The future of public administration around the world. The Minnowbrook perspective, ed. Rosemary O’Leary, David M. Van Slyke, and Soonhee Kim, 281–294. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Smiley, Marion. 1992. Pragmatic inquiry and social conflict: A critical reconstruction of Dewey’s model of democracy. In John Dewey: Critical assessments. Vol. 2: Political theory and social practice, ed. Jim Tiles, 287–306. London/New York: Routledge.
Smith, Joel, Stephen Schneider, Michael Oppenheimer, Gary Yohe, William Hare, Michael D. Mastrandrea, Anand Patwardhan, et al. 2009. Assessing dangerous climate change through an update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “reasons for concern.”. PNAS 106(11): 4133–4137.CrossRef
Stern, Nicolas. 2007. The economics of climate change. The Stern review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Szarka, Joseph. 2011. The EU, the USA and the climate divide: Reappraising strategic choices. European Political Science 11: 31–40.CrossRef
Victor, David G. 2011. Global warming gridlock: Creating more effective strategies for protecting the planet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Victor, David G. 2015. Climate change: Embed the social sciences in climate policy. Comment. Nature 520: 27–29.CrossRef
Wagner, Gernot, and Martin L. Weitzman. 2015. Climate shock: The economic consequences of a hotter planet. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRef
Weaver, Christopher P., Siân Mooney, David Allen, Nancy Beller-Simms, T. Fish, Anne E. Grambsch, William Hohenstein, et al. 2014. From global change science to action with social sciences. Commentary. Nature Climate Change 4: 656–659.CrossRef
Weitzman, Martin L. 2009. On modelling and interpreting the economics of catastrophic climate change. The Review of Economics and Statistics 91(1): 1–19.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
The Need for an Integrated Economic Assessment of Climate Policy Options
verfasst von
Martin Kowarsch
Copyright-Jahr
2016
Buch
A Pragmatist Orientation for the Social Sciences in Climate Policy

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43279-3

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-43281-6

Copyright-Jahr: 2016

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43281-6_2