Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Compliance with climate change agreements: the constraints of consumption

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Data source: UNFCCC (2000–2014)

Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barrett, S., & Stavins, R. (2003). Increasing participation and compliance in international climate change agreements. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 3, 349–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breitmeier, H., Young, O. R., & Zurn, M. (2006). Analyzing international environmental regimes: From case study to database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bulkeley, H. (2013). Cities and climate change. Oxford: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2010). Microeconometrics using stata. College Station: Stata Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chasek, P. S., Downie, D. L., & Brown, J. W. (2014). Global environmental politics. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chayes, A., & Chayes, A. H. (1995). The new sovereignty: Compliance with international regulatory agreements. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dauvergne, P. (2008). The shadows of consumption: Consequences for the global environment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeGraaf, J., Wann, D., & Naylor, T. H. (2001). Affluenza: The all-consuming epidemic. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Environment Agency. (2014). Environmental indicator report 2014. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, D. R., & Freudenburg, W. R. (2004). Postindustrialization and environmental quality: An empirical analysis of the environmental state. Social Forces, 83(1), 157–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez, M., & Lucky, M. (2013). Fossil fuels dominate primary energy consumption. Washington: Worldwatch Institute. http://www.worldwatch.org/fossil-fuels-dominate-primary-energy-consumption-1.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, P. G. (2013). What’s wrong with climate politics and how to fix it. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, P. G. (2014). Climate policy: Risk-averse governments. Nature Climate Change, 4, 245–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, K., & Sundstrom, L. M. (2007). The comparative politics of climate change. Global Environmental Politics, 7(4), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hertwich, E. G. (2011). The lifecycle environmental impacts of consumption. Economic Systems Research, 23(1), 27–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Energy Agency. (2014). CO 2 emissions from fuel combustion. Paris: International Energy Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kysar, D. A., & Vandenburgh, M. P. (2008). Climate change and consumption. Environmental Law Reporter, 38, 10825–10834.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lachapelle, E., & Paterson, M. (2013). Drivers of national climate policy. Climate Policy, 13(5), 547–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, T. (2015). Global cities and climate change: Translocal relations and environmental governance. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, M. G., & Jaggers, K. (2007). POLITY IV project: Dataset users’ manual. Vienna: George Mason University, Center for Systemic Peace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mines, R. O. (2014). Environmental engineering: Principles and practice. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, N., & Kent, J. (2013). The new consumers: The influence of affluence on the environment. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (2016). Trends in atmospheric carbon dioxide. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/.

  • Neumayer, E. (2002). Do democracies exhibit stronger international environmental commitment? A cross-country analysis. Journal of Peace Research, 29(2), 139–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newell, P. (2008). Civil society, corporate accountability and the politics of climate change. Global Environmental Politics, 8(3), 122–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oberthür, S., & Kelly, C. R. (2008). EU Leadership in international climate policy: Achievements and challenges. The International Spectator, 43(3), 35–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peace, J., & Juliani, T. (2009). The coming carbon market and its impact on the American economy. Policy and Society, 27, 305–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Princen, T., Maniates, M., & Conca, K. (Eds.). (2002). Confronting consumption. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreurs, M., & Tiberghien, Y. (2007). Multi-level reinforcement: Explaining European Union leadership in climate change mitigation. Global Environmental Politics, 7(4), 19–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sovacool, B. K. (2009). The importance of comprehensiveness in renewable electricity and energy-efficiency policy. Energy Policy, 37, 1529–1541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Storm, S. (2009). Capitalism and climate change: Can the invisible hand adjust the natural thermostat? Development and Change, 40(6), 1011–1038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNFCCC. (2002). Guide to the climate change negotiation process. http://unfccc.int/not_assigned/b/items/2555.php.

  • UNFCCC. (2008). Kyoto Protocol reference manual on accounting of emissions and assigned amounts. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/08_unfccc_kp_ref_manual.pdf.

  • UNFCCC. (2014). An introduction to the Kyoto Protocol compliance mechanism. http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/compliance/items/3024.php.

  • UNFCCC. (2015). Adoption of the Paris Agreement. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09.pdf.

  • United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). (2010). Assessing the environmental impacts of consumption and production: Priority products and materials. Nairobi: UNEP.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). (2014). Emissions gap report 2014. Nairobi: UNEP.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). (2000–2014). National greenhouse gas inventory data for the period 1990–2012. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2014/sbi/eng/20.pdf.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2013). Household final consumption expenditure per capita. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.CON.PRVT.PC.KD.

  • World Bank. (2016). Fossil fuel energy consumption. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.COMM.FO.ZS.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, O. R. (1999). Governance in world affairs. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Political Science Department, Yonsei University, 50 Yonsei Ro 50, Seodaemoon Gu, Seoul, Korea

    Taedong Lee

  2. Department of Social Sciences, Education University of Hong Kong, 10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, Hong Kong

    Paul G. Harris

Authors
  1. Paul G. Harris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Taedong Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Taedong Lee.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 2.

Table 2 Data variables
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Harris, P.G., Lee, T. Compliance with climate change agreements: the constraints of consumption. Int Environ Agreements 17, 779–794 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-017-9365-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-017-9365-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation