Round Up

Harvard Project on Climate Agreements Discussion Paper Series and Related Research

Nov. 07, 2018

The Harvard Project on Climate Agreements is supporting more than twenty-seven research projects from leading thinkers around the world, including from Europe, China, Japan, India, Australia, and the United States. These projects range in topic from complete architectures to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, to proposed solutions to specific problems climate negotiators face, such as facilitating technology transfer to developing countries, preventing deforestation, and enforcing a global climate agreement.

For more information on this publication: Belfer Communications Office
For Academic Citation:

44 Items

Discussion Paper - Harvard Project on Climate Agreements

Investor Rewards to Climate Responsibility: Stock-Price Responses to the Opposite Shocks of the 2016 and 2020 U.S. Elections

    Authors:
  • Stefano Ramelli
  • Alexandre Ziegler
  • Richard Zeckhauser
| May 2021

Donald Trump’s 2016 election and his nomination of climate skeptic Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency drastically downshifted expectations on U.S. policy toward climate change. Joseph Biden’s 2020 election shifted them dramatically upward. The authors study firms’ stock-price movements in reaction. As expected, the 2016 election boosted carbon-intensive firms. Surprisingly, firms with climate-responsible strategies also gained, especially those firms held by long-run investors. Such investors appear to have bet on a ‘‘boomerang’’ in climate policy. Harbingers of a boomerang already appeared during Trump’s term. The 2020 election marked its arrival.

Discussion Paper - Harvard Project on Climate Agreements

Co-Benefits and Regulatory Impact Analysis: Theory and Evidence from Federal Air Quality Regulations

    Authors:
  • Matthew Kotchen
  • Mary Evans
  • Meredith Fowlie
  • Arik Levinson
  • Karen Palmer
| January 2021

This paper considers the treatment of co-benefits in benefit-cost analysis of federal air quality regulations. Using a comprehensive data set on all major Clean Air Act rules issued by the Environmental Protection Agency over the period 1997–2019, the authors show that (1) co-benefits make up a significant share of the monetized benefits; (2) among the categories of co-benefits, those associated with reductions in fine particulate matter are the most significant; and (3) co-benefits have been pivotal to the quantified net benefit calculation in nearly half of cases.

Discussion Paper - Harvard Project on Climate Agreements

Rolling the Dice in the Corridors of Power: William Nordhaus's Impacts on Climate Change Policy

| July 2020

The seminal contributions of William Nordhaus to scholarship on the long-run macroeconomics of global climate change are clear. Much more challenging to identify are the impacts of Nordhaus and his research on public policy in this domain. The authors examine three conceptually distinct pathways for that influence: his personal participation in the policy world; his research’s direct contribution to the formulation and evaluation of public policy; and his research’s indirect role informing public policy

Discussion Paper - Harvard Project on Climate Agreements

Creating Subnational Climate Institutions in China

| December 2019

This discussion paper (available in English and Chinese) describes the evolution of decentralization over the reform period that began in China in 1978, different theories of institutional change in China, and how the empirical and theoretical literatures help scholars and policymakers understand the development of institutions for governing GHG-emitting activities.

Discussion Paper - Harvard Project on Climate Agreements

The Future of U.S. Carbon-Pricing Policy

| May 2019

There is widespread agreement among economists — and a diverse set of other policy analysts — that at least in the long run, an economy-wide carbon pricing system will be an essential element of any national policy that can achieve meaningful reductions of CO2 emissions cost-effectively in the United States. There is less agreement, however, among economists and others in the policy community regarding the choice of specific carbon-pricing policy instrument. 

Discussion Paper - Harvard Project on Climate Agreements

GHG Cap-and-Trade: Implications for Effective and Efficient Climate Policy in Oregon

| November 2018

Like many other states, Oregon has begun to pursue climate policies to attempt to fill the gap created by the lack of effective climate policy at the Federal level. After adopting a variety of policies to address climate change and other environmental impacts from energy use, Oregon is now contemplating the adoption of a greenhouse gas (GHG) cap-and-trade system. However, interactions between policies can have important consequences for environmental and economic outcomes. Thus, as Oregon considers taking this step, reconsidering the efficacy of its other current climate policies may better position the state to achieve long-run emission reductions at sustainable economic costs.

Discussion Paper - Harvard Project on Climate Agreements

Policy Evolution Under the Clean Air Act

| November 2018

The U.S. Clean Air Act, passed in 1970 with strong bipartisan support, was the first environmental law to give the Federal government a serious regulatory role, established the architecture of the U.S. air pollution control system, and became a model for subsequent environmental laws in the United States and globally. We outline the Act’s key provisions, as well as the main changes Congress has made to it over time. We assess the evolution of air pollution control policy under the Clean Air Act, with particular attention to the types of policy instruments used. We provide a generic assessment of the major types of policy instruments, and we trace and assess the historical evolution of EPA’s policy instrument use, with particular focus on the increased use of market-based policy instruments, beginning in the 1970s and culminating in the 1990s.

Discussion Paper - Harvard Project on Climate Agreements

Governing Cooperative Approaches under the Paris Agreement

    Author:
  • Michael A. Mehling
| November 2018

This paper draws upon research, practical experience with carbon trading, textual analysis, negotiating history, and insights from stakeholders to develop principles that can help inform the elaboration of cooperative approaches set out in Article 6.2 of the Paris Agreement — and thereby enhance opportunities for ambitious mitigation. The author, Michael A. Mehling, explores, in particular, how operational guidance for implementing Article 6.2 can balance environmental ambition and flexibility in governance.

Discussion Paper - Harvard Project on Climate Agreements, Belfer Center

On a World Climate Assembly and the Social Cost of Carbon

    Author:
  • Martin L. Weitzman
| November 2016

Martin Weitzman explores theoretically how international cooperation (democratic voting and/or negotiation) to set a global carbon price might incentivize mitigation and yield a global price that approximates an economically-efficient "social cost of carbon."

Discussion Paper - Harvard Project on Climate Agreements, Belfer Center

Living Mitigation Plans: The Co-Evolution of Mitigation Pledge and Review

| October 25, 2016

The 2015 Paris Agreement completed the transition to pledge-and-review as the core of the multilateral climate policy architecture. With ambitious long-term temperature goals and country-specific emission mitigation pledges set through 2030, the unfinished business coming out of the Paris talks is the design and implementation of the climate transparency mechanism. This paper reviews the poor transparency track record under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and uses this performance to motivate engagement of non-stakeholders to enhance the rigor of the information and analysis of countries' emission mitigation efforts.