Policy instruments for limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C - can humanity rise to the challenge?
Policy instruments for limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C - can humanity rise to the challenge?
复制标题
将全球气温上升限制在1.5°C的政策工具——人类能否应对挑战？
DOI：
10.1080/14693062.2018.1426977
复制
发表时间：
2018
期刊：
影响因子：
7.1
通讯作者：
Michaelowa A
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Michaelowa A
为了调动达到与1.5°C一致的全球排放路径所需的减缓量，政策工具需要比迄今为止更加严格。他们必须确保关键经济部门在一代人的时间内实现完全脱碳，这将要求高碳资产在其技术寿命结束前退役。然而，政治经济学表明，只有那些有利于组织良好的利益集团，同时尽可能广泛地分摊成本的工具才会得到实施。在过去，这导致了一些扭曲现象，如排放交易系统系统性地过度分配配额，或免除工业的碳税。在有利的游说集团下，可以出现强有力的缓解补贴计划。欧洲的可再生能源上网电价持续了20多年，对风能和太阳能技术的突破至关重要。但是，一旦来自中国的竞争导致欧洲技术供应商的消亡，欧洲民众开始感受到电费附加费的压力，上网电价就被废除了。从历史上看，达到1.5°C所需的快速自然变化要么建立在对基础设施的大量公共投资上，要么建立在国家紧急状态的一般概念上。创新形式的市场机制可以使决策者相信，缓解成本低于预期，从而加快缓解。为了使影响深远的减缓政策取得长期成功，至关重要的是，这些政策是被视为利用机会，还是被视为一种严峻的、关键政策见解利益集团在减缓政策工具的设计中发挥着关键作用，并降低了其效率和有效性。产生高碳价格水平的工具在未来可能会如果收入的再分配能够以安抚主要利益集团的方式进行，那么将动员成熟缓解技术的市场机制与针对新兴技术的专门公共投资计划相结合似乎是有希望的，前提是技术能够在正确的时间点“摆脱”公共支持。对于“应急”技术，如负排放技术（NETs）或太阳辐射管理（SRM），国际层面的治理机制至关重要。
In order to mobilize the volume of mitigation required to reach a global emissions path consistent with 1.5°C, policy instruments need to be much more stringent than they have been to date. They will have to ensure full decarbonization of key economic sectors within one generation, which will require retirement of high-carbon assets before the end of their technical lifetime. However, political economy shows that only those instruments will be implemented that benefit well-organized interest groups while spreading costs as widely as possible. In the past, this has led to distortions such as emissions trading systems with systemic overallocation of allowances, or carbon taxes that exempt industry. Under favourable lobbying constellations strong subsidy schemes for mitigation can emerge. Renewable feed-in tariffs in Europe persisted for over two decades and were crucial for the breakthrough of wind and solar power technologies. But once competition from China led to the demise of European technology providers and the European population started to feel the pinch from the surcharges on their electricity bills, feed-in tariffs were abolished. Historically, rapid transformations of the nature required to reach 1.5°C built on either lavish public investment into the underlying infrastructure or a general notion of national emergency. Innovative forms of market mechanisms could convince policy makers that mitigation costs are lower than expected and thus accelerate mitigation. For the long-term success of far-reaching mitigation policies, it will be crucial whether they can be framed as harnessing an opportunity or whether they are seen as a grim, but grudgingly accepted response to a societal emergency.Key policy insightsInterest groups play a key role in the design of mitigation policy instruments and reduce their efficiency as well as effectiveness.Instruments generating high carbon price levels may in the future be possible if redistribution of revenues is done in a way that soothes the key interest groups.A mixture of market mechanisms for mobilization of mature mitigation technologies with a dedicated public investment programme for emerging technologies seems promising, provided technologies can be ‘weaned off’ public support at the right point in time.For contentious, ‘emergency’ technologies such as Negative Emission Technologies (NETs) or Solar Radiation Management (SRM), governance mechanisms on the international level are critical.