Suchergebnisse

Chapter 1 Introduction: The Changing Politics of European Air Pollution Control -- chapter 2 Studying European Air Pollution Politics: The Conceptual Lenses -- chapter 3 Background and Baseline: European Air Pollution Politics in the 1980s -- chapter 4 CLRTAP's Significant Leap Forward in the 1990s: Negotiating the 1999 Gothenburg Protocol -- chapter 5 How the EU Took Up the Challenge of Acidification and Smog in the 1990s: The Acidification Strategy and NEC Directive -- chapter 6 Comparing the EU and CLRTAP: Explaining Policy Differences -- and Why They are So Small -- chapter 7 Implementing Stronger European Air Pollution Policies: Will High Hopes in Brussels and Geneva be Dashed in London? -- chapter 8 Summing Up and Looking Ahead: Constructive Interplay between the EU and CLRTAP.

Preface and Acknowledgements -- Contents -- Acronyms and Abbreviations -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- Chapter 1: Introduction -- Chapter 2: Analytical Framework -- Introduction -- What Is to Be Explained: The Capacity to Reform the ETS -- Factors Shaping the ETS Reform Capacity -- Understanding Member-States Positions and Council Negotiations -- Europe's Supranational Actors -- Role of Non-Governmental Actors -- Focus on Business -- The EU-External Context -- …But Which Factor Was Most Important? -- Method -- References

AbstractIn April 2023, the EU institutions finally adopted an innovative international climate policy instrument: the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). As the long and winding road to a CBAM has included significant EU‐internal and EU‐external opposition, a "shifting Multi‐Level Reinforcement" (MLR) perspective is helpful for understanding this development. When France assumed initial leadership from 2007, skepticism to the WTO, generous amounts of free allowances, combined with a low carbon price, provided a strong oppositional force. Then, influential elements in the European Parliament called for a carbon border tax, which was subsequently included as a central ingredient in the "Fit for 55" package launched by the Commission, In the decisionmaking process, leadership involving all the previous forces resulted in an institutional reinforcement dynamic strong enough to counter EU‐internal as well as EU‐external challenges and 'turbulence'. This case shows the relevance of an updated MLR perspective for understanding also other EU processes, taking into account the growing role of both policy packages and trilogues as decisionmaking tools, indicating a possible strengthened role for the Commission also in the decisionmaking phase.

Is rescuing the EU's emissions trading system impossible? Despite the substantial reform in 2008, subsequent problems of allowance surplus and a low carbon price have spurred new efforts to reform the system for the 2013–2020 phase. But these efforts have met resistance both among member states and in the European parliament, and the EU is struggling in its efforts to improve the ETS. This article draws on four central EU and political science theory approaches to more systematically explore why. The financial crisis and slow international policy progress have narrowed the window of opportunity that was open in 2008. Factors that could open that window again include an economic upswing, a new European commission and parliament, and new global negotiations in 2015. But even without short-term reform, the linear reduction factor will gradually tighten the system and lead to a higher carbon price.

AbstractThe EU emissions trading system (ETS) is the first large‐scale international emissions trading system and a "cornerstone" in EU climate policy. A key element in the ETS implementation process is deciding upon the ceiling ("cap") for the emissions included in the ETS. Over time, a significant change and centralization of this model has taken place. In order to understand this development, we need to acknowledge the increasing acceptance of stronger centralized governance among the member states due to ETS pilot phase problems; take into consideration frustration in the European Commission over complex and differing National Allocation Plans; and add the fact that the Kyoto Protocol target was getting nearer and a good performance of the "flagship" ETS was becoming increasingly important. Hence, although the case supports the importance of acknowledging the multilevel character of the EU, it still emphasizes the key role of changes in member states' interests and positions for understanding outcomes.

The EU emissions trading scheme has been characterized as one of the most farreaching and radical environmental policies for many years, and "the new grand policy experiment." Given the EU's earlier resistance to this market-based instrument with no international track record and with US origins, the EU decision-making process, which took less than two years, can be characterized as a puzzlingly ultra-quick political "pregnancy." In order to understand this, it is necessary to take three explanatory perspectives—and the interaction between them—into account. First, the emissions trading issue was more mature within the EU system than immediately apparent, given that emissions projections were worrying and no effective common climate policies had been adopted. Second, the Commission acted as a strong and clever policy entrepreneur, dealing with other basically positive EU bodies. Third, when the US pulled out of the Kyoto process in March 2001, it provided a window of opportunity for the EU to take the reins of global policy leadership.

The Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution Regime is a good example of the complex relationship between institutional design and the weight given to scientific evidence. Although the institutional machinery has been functioning quite well on its own premises, the acceptance and weight given to scientific evidence has been variable. While institutional design inevitably affects the extent to which such evidence is accepted, the weight given to scientific evidence is better explained by background factors like political malignancy, or the asymmetries in the degree to which different states are affected by environmental problems and associated regulatory policies; and public awareness, or saliency. Possibly the most important challenge facing this system is the increasing scientific involvement in the decisionmaking process, linked to the rise of the "critical loads" approach. Whether such extensive involvement by scientific experts in the political process can be accomplished without seriously threatening thefundamental scientific legitimacy of the system, remains to be seen.