Climate policy effectiveness under different leadership

🌍 The #OECD Climate Actions and Policies Measurement Framework (CAPMF) offers a treasure trove of insights into climate policy across 49 countries, with over 38,000 data points spanning from 1990 to 2022. 📊This data may prove invaluable to businesses and investors looking to understand the climate transition risks associated with different jurisdictions. One particularly insightful dataset within CAPMF relates to policy stringency. The OECD ranks each country's climate mitigation policies on a 0-10 scale, with '0' being not stringent and '10' being very stringent. Changes in policy stringency over time can reveal a lot about a country's commitment to climate action, while the pace of change may act as a useful proxy for climate transition risk 🌡️ For instance, since the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015, Canada has seen the largest increase in cross-sectoral policy stringency (thanks, Liberals!) while Poland has seen the least. Interestingly, changes in government can lead to significant shifts in policy stringency, as demonstrated by the UK's fluctuations under different Prime Ministers. In the run up to COP26, the UK's policy stringency soared to 7.01 under PM Boris Johnson. Since his removal from office and replacement by Liz Truss and then Rishi Sunak -- who's made a habit of trashing the UK's Net Zero policies -- policy stringency has fallen to 6.71. How can this data inform investors and non-financial companies of country-level transition risks? I'd be interested in what Jakob Thomä Mark Cliffe Amos Wittenberg think, and anyone else who wants to comment below! 👇 #climatechange #climaterisk #climatepolicy #OECD #ESG #sustainability #riskmanagement #climateaction #investing

Four years ago, during the US election, I published a Presidential Climate Policy Report Card on CleanTechnica. It's time again to assess and compare administrations. Setting the stage: https://lnkd.in/gGDe_-hF Back then, Trump’s climate record was clear, while Biden/Harris’s promises were just campaign rhetoric. We looked back to the Obama/Biden era to contrast with Trump’s term and the Democratic platform. Obama/Biden had mixed results: an A for reducing military personnel overseas, a B+ for treaties and industry, a B for land use, a C+ for transportation, and a C for electrical generation. This was still better than Trump/Pence, who mostly scored Fs, except for a D in transportation due to aviation industry lobbying. Now, we can evaluate the Biden/Harris Administration’s actual track record. Trump's term mostly stands, but the needle on climate urgency has shifted, making today’s grading stricter. The notable exception is Trump’s late-term enactment of allowances and a market mechanism for high global warming potential refrigerants, improving his industry score from F to D-. Biden/Harris has made significant climate strides, while Trump’s term was marked by climate inaction and other failures. The possibility of Trump returning to office, despite his record and recent controversies, is perplexing and concerning for many. The framework assesses emissions from electrical generation, transportation, land use, and industry, along with military impacts and global treaties. Adaptation to climate impacts and carbon drawdown are also crucial. Stay tuned for the weekly detailed climate policy report card series for the 2024 election, analyzing each key area and providing a comprehensive wrap-up. #elections #unitedstates #policy #climateaction

Sorry to be a buzzkill, but with last week’s election placing Trump back in the White House, the US may be heading for a significant retreat from its recent climate commitments – and this will impact the entire world’s timeline for reaching net zero. 🔄 In his previous term, Trump reversed critical climate policies, including pulling the US out of the Paris Agreement and dismantling the Clean Power Plan. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which has been instrumental in accelerating clean energy adoption, creating green jobs, and offering tax credits for renewable energy, will likely be the first on the chopping block. 🌍 According to Carbon Brief analysis, US greenhouse gas emissions under Trump might be around 1GtCO2e higher in 2030 than under Biden, resulting in a cumulative addition of around 4GtCO2e by that year. To put things into context, only eight countries have emissions that exceed 1GtCO2e per year, and 4GtCO2e is more than the combined yearly total from the 140 lowest-emitting nations. 🏭 Incentives for clean energy deployment will likely face cutbacks, potentially slowing the pace of decarbonisation and impacting sectors that heavily rely on clean energy to meet their sustainability targets, such as data centres and tech manufacturers. Ultimately, this election result is signalling a more fossil-fuel-centric direction for the US over the next four years. I’ll be watching closely and hoping that collective action can drive progress forward, even as American policy heads in a different direction. #USElection #Trump #Sustainability #Tech #DataCentres 

Rethinking #ClimatePolicy: The Power of Tailored Approaches 🌍🏭🧩 Climate policy effectiveness isn't a simple yes or no question. The real challenge lies in understanding which policies work under specific conditions. 🔍 A recent study in Science offers crucial insights into this complex issue, analysing approximately 1,500 climate policies across 41 countries from 1998 to 2022. The research, led by Annika Stechemesser and colleagues, identified 63 successful policy interventions that significantly reduced emissions. Their findings reveal that tailored policy mixes often outperform single-instrument approaches. In the transport sector of developed economies, combining pricing with subsidies was highly effective, while in developing economies, regulation was most powerful, both alone and in combination with other policies. 🚗💨 In the electricity sector of developed economies, pricing was key in 50% of effective interventions, while in developing economies, standalone subsidies were most effective. These findings underscore the importance of context-specific policy design in driving meaningful emission reductions. 🏙️🏭 The study's nuanced approach provides a solid foundation for more effective climate action. However, I believe its implications extend beyond environmental outcomes to the realm of political feasibility. 🏛️🤝 In my view, these tailored policy mixes may offer a promising path through the political gridlock that often impedes climate action. By incorporating diverse policy instruments - from market-based mechanisms to regulations and incentives - these mixes provide multiple points for negotiation between differing ideological positions. 🔧🎯 Consider how this approach might bridge the gap between left and right. Conservatives might favour pricing mechanisms for their market-based approach, while progressives could support strong regulatory measures. A well-designed mix that includes both could potentially satisfy both camps, leading to a more politically viable solution. 🌈🤝 Furthermore, the sector-specific nature of effective policy mixes aligns well with the diverse interests represented in most political systems. Policies tailored to the buildings sector might appeal to urban representatives, while measures targeting industry could gain support from legislators in manufacturing-heavy districts. This granularity allows for more precise addressing of constituent concerns, potentially reducing overall opposition and fostering compromise. 🏙️🏭🤔 In a world grappling with polarization, could this approach offer a pragmatic way forward on climate action? By providing a framework for compromise without sacrificing effectiveness, tailored policy mixes might be key to unlocking sustained, impactful climate policy. 🔑🌱 What's your perspective on this? How might we leverage these insights to overcome political barriers to climate action? Link to study: https://lnkd.in/ehH8tHxf