Many economists have long held that carbon pricing—either through a carbon tax or cap-and-trade—is the most cost-effective way to decarbonize energy systems, along with subsidies for basic research and development. Meanwhile, green innovation and industrial policies aimed at fostering low-carbon energy technologies have proliferated widely. Most of these predate direct carbon pricing. Low-carbon leaders such as California and the European Union (EU) have followed a distinct policy sequence that helps overcome some of the political challenges facing low-carbon policy by building economic interest groups in support of decarbonization and reducing the cost of technologies required for emissions reductions. However, while politically effective, this policy pathway faces significant challenges to environmental and cost effectiveness.

This paper examines the domestic sources of the internationalization of national oil companies (NOCs) in China and India. It argues that—counter to notions of state-led internationalization—the going abroad of NOCs reflects a pattern of “coopetition,” i.e., the co-existence of cooperation and conflict between increasingly entrepreneurial NOCs and partially supportive and interventionist home governments.

On May 9 and 10, the Geopolitics of Natural Gas study had its third workshop to develop scenarios for the geopolitics of natural gas. This time the members of the two-year joint Harvard/Rice project met at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston. The two-day session brought together experts on major gas producer and consumer countries, economists specialized in world gas modelling and industry representatives.

Over the past decade, carbon trading has emerged as the industrialized world's primary policy response to global climate change despite considerable controversy. With carbon markets worth $144 billion in 2009, carbon trading represents the largest manifestation of the trend toward market-based environmental governance. In Carbon Coalitions, Jonas Meckling presents the first comprehensive study on the rise of carbon trading and the role business played in making this policy instrument a central pillar of global climate governance.

Over the last decade, carbon trading has emerged as the policy instrument of choice in the industrialized world to address global climate change. This paper argues that a transnational business coalition, representing mostly energy firms and energy-intensive manufacturers, actively promoted the global rise of carbon trading. In this process, business could draw on the support of government allies and business-oriented environmental groups, particularly in the UK and the US.

"...[T]he corporate winners of a green economy have emerged as a force in climate politics, throwing their weight behind a deal. If a price is put on carbon dioxide emissions, producers of low-carbon technologies are likely to experience an increase in demand for their products. Moreover, cap-and-trade schemes — a key pillar of climate policies around the globe — create new commodity markets in their own rights. In 2009, the global carbon market was worth $144 billion, and it is expected to grow exponentially over the coming decade. In particular financial services providers, accountants and lawyers have taken great interest in the carbon gold rush."

Sectoral approaches have been gaining currency in the international climate debate as a possible remedy to the shortfalls of the Kyoto Protocol. Proponents argue that a sector-based architecture can more easily invite the participation of developing countries, address competitiveness issues, and enable immediate emissions reductions. However, given the numerous proposals, much confusion remains as to what sectoral approaches actually are. This article provides a simple, yet comprehensive, taxonomy of the various proposals for sectoral approaches.

In this paper, Jonas Meckling assesses the two types of sectoral approach advocated by the World Business Council on Sustainable Development: voluntary sectoral target setting and sectoral industry technology cooperation — against the criteria of environmental effectiveness and global equity.