Compliance with climate change agreements: the constraints of consumption

  • Paul G. Harris
  • Taedong LeeEmail author
Original Paper


The Kyoto Protocol required most developed countries collectively to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions about 5% below 1990 levels by 2012. Despite the binding nature of each country’s emissions-limitation target, levels of compliance varied greatly. What explains this variation in compliance? This article shows that the amount of material consumption within each country may contribute to answering this question. Using cross-sectional time-series data analysis for 36 Annex I (developed) countries from 2000 to 2012 and controlling for a range of domestic and international factors, quantitative analysis shows that compliance with emissions targets is least likely to be realized in countries with higher levels of consumption. This tendency has vitally important implications for agreements on future emissions limitations because those agreements must include more of the large developing countries that are intent on raising their own citizens’ consumption toward levels in the developed world. Without addressing consumption behaviors and the policy implications thereof, adequately mitigating GHG pollution in the future, notably through the 2015 Paris Agreement, will be extremely difficult.


Climate change Compliance Consumption Framework Convention on Climate Change Kyoto Protocol 



Funding was provided by National Research Foundation of Korea (Grant No. 2016S1A3A2924409).


  1. Barrett, S., & Stavins, R. (2003). Increasing participation and compliance in international climate change agreements. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 3, 349–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bättig, M. B., & Bernauer, T. (2009). National institutions and global public goods: Are democracies more cooperative in climate change policy? International organization, 63(2), 281–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck, N., & Katz, J. N. (1995). What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data. American Political Science Review, 89, 634–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Behrensa, A., Giljuma, S., Kovandab, J., & Nizac, S. (2007). The material basis of the global economy: Worldwide patterns of natural resource extraction and their implications for sustainable resource use policies. Ecological Economics, 64(2), 444–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Breitmeier, H., Young, O. R., & Zurn, M. (2006). Analyzing international environmental regimes: From case study to database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bulkeley, H. (2013). Cities and climate change. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Bulkeley, H., & Broto, V. C. (2012). Government by experiment? Global cities and the governing of climate change. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38(3), 361–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2010). Microeconometrics using stata. College Station: Stata Press.Google Scholar
  9. Chasek, P. S., Downie, D. L., & Brown, J. W. (2014). Global environmental politics. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  10. Chayes, A., & Chayes, A. H. (1995). The new sovereignty: Compliance with international regulatory agreements. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cheon, A., & Urpelainen, J. (2013). How do competing interest groups influence environmental policy? The case of renewable electricity in industrialized democracies, 1989–2007. Political Studies, 61(4), 874–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dauvergne, P. (2008). The shadows of consumption: Consequences for the global environment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. DeGraaf, J., Wann, D., & Naylor, T. H. (2001). Affluenza: The all-consuming epidemic. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
  14. European Environment Agency. (2014). Environmental indicator report 2014. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  15. Fisher, D. R., & Freudenburg, W. R. (2004). Postindustrialization and environmental quality: An empirical analysis of the environmental state. Social Forces, 83(1), 157–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gonzalez, M., & Lucky, M. (2013). Fossil fuels dominate primary energy consumption. Washington: Worldwatch Institute.
  17. Haas, R., Panzera, C., Rescha, G., Ragwitzb, M., Reecec, G., & Heldb, A. (2011). A historical review of promotion strategies for electricity from renewable energy sources in EU countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2011, 1003–1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harris, P. G. (2013). What’s wrong with climate politics and how to fix it. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  19. Harris, P. G. (2014). Climate policy: Risk-averse governments. Nature Climate Change, 4, 245–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harris, P. G., & Symons, J. (2013). Norm conflict in climate governance: Greenhouse gas accounting and the problem of consumption. Global Environmental Politics, 13(1), 9–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harrison, K., & Sundstrom, L. M. (2007). The comparative politics of climate change. Global Environmental Politics, 7(4), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hertwich, E. G. (2011). The lifecycle environmental impacts of consumption. Economic Systems Research, 23(1), 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Howlett, M. (2014). Why are policy innovations rare and so often negative? Blame avoidance and problem denial in climate change policy-making. Global Environmental Change, 29, 395–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. International Energy Agency. (2014). CO 2 emissions from fuel combustion. Paris: International Energy Agency.Google Scholar
  25. Jorgenson, A. K. (2006). Global warming and the neglected greenhouse gas: A cross-national study of the social causes of methane emissions intensity, 1995. Social Force, 84(3), 1779–1798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kutting, G. (2014). Consumption: Institutions and actors. In P. G. Harris (Ed.), Routledge handbook of global environmental politics (pp. 205–214). Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Kysar, D. A., & Vandenburgh, M. P. (2008). Climate change and consumption. Environmental Law Reporter, 38, 10825–10834.Google Scholar
  28. Lachapelle, E., & Paterson, M. (2013). Drivers of national climate policy. Climate Policy, 13(5), 547–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee, T. (2015). Global cities and climate change: Translocal relations and environmental governance. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Lee, T., Lee, T., & Lee, Y. (2014). An experiment for urban energy autonomy in Seoul: The one ‘less’ nuclear power plant policy. Energy Policy, 74, 311–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marshall, M. G., & Jaggers, K. (2007). POLITY IV project: Dataset users’ manual. Vienna: George Mason University, Center for Systemic Peace.Google Scholar
  32. Mines, R. O. (2014). Environmental engineering: Principles and practice. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  33. Myers, N., & Kent, J. (2013). The new consumers: The influence of affluence on the environment. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  34. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (2016). Trends in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
  35. Neumayer, E. (2002). Do democracies exhibit stronger international environmental commitment? A cross-country analysis. Journal of Peace Research, 29(2), 139–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Newell, P. (2008). Civil society, corporate accountability and the politics of climate change. Global Environmental Politics, 8(3), 122–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Oberthür, S., & Kelly, C. R. (2008). EU Leadership in international climate policy: Achievements and challenges. The International Spectator, 43(3), 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Peace, J., & Juliani, T. (2009). The coming carbon market and its impact on the American economy. Policy and Society, 27, 305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Princen, T., Maniates, M., & Conca, K. (Eds.). (2002). Confronting consumption. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Roberts, J. T., Parks, B. C., & Vásquez, A. A. (2004). Who ratifies environmental treaties and why? Institutionalism, structuralism and participation by 192 nations in 22 treaties. Global Environmental Politics, 4(3), 22–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schreurs, M., & Tiberghien, Y. (2007). Multi-level reinforcement: Explaining European Union leadership in climate change mitigation. Global Environmental Politics, 7(4), 19–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sovacool, B. K. (2009). The importance of comprehensiveness in renewable electricity and energy-efficiency policy. Energy Policy, 37, 1529–1541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stern, P. C., Dietz, P., Ruttan, V. W., Socolow, R. H., & Sweeney, J. L. (Eds.). (1997). Environmentally significant consumption: Research directions. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  44. Storm, S. (2009). Capitalism and climate change: Can the invisible hand adjust the natural thermostat? Development and Change, 40(6), 1011–1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. UNFCCC. (2002). Guide to the climate change negotiation process.
  46. UNFCCC. (2008). Kyoto Protocol reference manual on accounting of emissions and assigned amounts.
  47. UNFCCC. (2014). An introduction to the Kyoto Protocol compliance mechanism.
  48. UNFCCC. (2015). Adoption of the Paris Agreement.
  49. United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). (2010). Assessing the environmental impacts of consumption and production: Priority products and materials. Nairobi: UNEP.Google Scholar
  50. United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). (2014). Emissions gap report 2014. Nairobi: UNEP.Google Scholar
  51. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). (2000–2014). National greenhouse gas inventory data for the period 1990–2012.
  52. Wiser, R., Bolinger, M., & Barbose, G. (2007). Using the federal production tax credit to build a durable market for wind power in the United States. The Electricity Journal, 20(9), 77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. World Bank. (2013). Household final consumption expenditure per capita.
  54. World Bank. (2016). Fossil fuel energy consumption.
  55. WWF, Zoological Society of London, Global Footprint Network, & Water Footprint Network. (2014). Living planet report 2014: Species and spaces, people and places. Gland: WWF.Google Scholar
  56. Yamagata, Y., Yang, J., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2013). A contingency theory of policy innovation: How different theories explain the ratification of the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 13, 251–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Young, O. R. (1999). Governance in world affairs. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Young, O. R. (2011). Improving the performance of the climate regime: Insights from regime analysis. In J. S. Dryzek, R. B. Norgaard, & D. Schlosber (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of climate change and society (pp. 625–638). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Political Science DepartmentYonsei UniversitySeoulKorea
  2. 2.Department of Social SciencesEducation University of Hong KongTai PoHong Kong

Personalised recommendations