Suchergebnisse

It is well established that adaptation and technological investment in each case may serve as a commitment device in international climate politics. This paper for the first time analyzes the combined impact of these two strategic variables on global mitigation within a noncooperative framework where countries either decide on mitigation before or after adaptation. By investment, which is assumed to be made in the first place due to its considerable lead time, countries commit to lower national contributions to the global public good of mitigation. We find that the sequencing of adaptation before mitigation reinforces this strategic effect of technological investments at least for sufficiently similar countries. As a consequence, the subgame-perfect equilibrium yields a globally lower level of mitigation and higher global costs of climate change when adaptation is decided before mitigation. Besides this theoretical contribution, the paper proposes some strategies to combat the unfortunate rush to adaptation which can be currently observed in climate politics.

The strategy of adaptation to climate change has become a central topic within the UNFCCC negotiations in recent years. On the national level, adaptation plans are elaborated, and on the international level, the need for funding adaptation in developing countries is discussed. This tendency shows that adaptation is likely to be advanced relative to mitigation on the political agenda. Therefore, we analyze the economic consequences of the timing of mitigation and adaptation in a game-theoretic framework regarding as well the importance of technological investments for mitigation. Due to strategic behavior, the activity in mitigation deteriorates when adaptation is advanced. As a consequence, the resulting subgame-perfect equilibrium yields higher total costs. We demonstrate that this result is even reinforced when technological investments are regarded, i.e. the negative effects of advancing adaptation relative to the opposite timing are amplified.

Funding developing countries' climate policies after Cancun (COP16) has a dual goal: firstly, to support mitigation of developing countries in order to sustain the two-degree pathway of stabilising the global mean temperature; secondly, to empower the vulnerable countries in low-income regions to adapt to and recover from the most adverse impacts of climate change. So far, the political and scientific discussion has mainly concentrated on the appropriate level of funding. Referring to the newly emerging climate finance architecture under the post-Kyoto framework, this paper argues that a stronger focus must be put on the question: which mode of funding to choose? This is for the reason that the currently discussed funding instruments, such as earmarking of industrialised countries' transfer payments to developing countries for reducing loss and damages, mitigation, or adaptation costs, may cause fundamental changes in the countries' strategic behaviour concerning mitigation and adaptation efforts. Moreover, some of the instruments fall short of a minimum requirement for the donors to voluntarily provide means, and thus cannot guarantee sustained funding. We develop our results in a non-cooperative two-country framework in which donor and recipient decide on mitigation in the first, and on adaptation in the second stage of the game.

It is well established that adaptation and technological investment in each case may serve as a commitment device in international climate politics. This paper for the first time analyzes the combined impact of these two strategic variables on global mitigation within a noncooperative framework where countries either decide on mitigation before or after adaptation. By investment, which is assumed to be made in the first place due to its considerable lead time, countries commit to lower national contributions to the global public good of mitigation. We find that the sequencing of adaptation before mitigation reinforces this strategic effect of technological investments at least for sufficiently similar countries. As a consequence, the subgame-perfect equilibrium yields a globally lower level of mitigation and higher global costs of climate change when adaptation is decided before mitigation. Besides this theoretical contribution, the paper proposes some strategies to combat the unfortunate rush to adaptation which can be currently observed in climate politics.