"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has proven its value as an institution for large-scale scientific collaboration to synthesize and assess large volumes of climate research for use by policy-makers, as well as for establishing credibility of findings among diverse national governments. But the IPCC has received considerable criticism of both its substance and process."

"We insist on being policy-relevant but not policy-prescriptive," Stavins says. "And that is something the negotiating teams appreciate. Whereas many groups have an ax to grind, we do not; we just want to help them understand the nature and dimensions of specific issues and how they can address them."

"What really matters for addressing climate change is enlightened public policy at the international, national and sub-national levels. In particular, it will take serious, economy-wide, carbon-pricing regimes — either carbon taxes or cap-and-trade systems — to bring about meaningful reductions in carbon dioxide emissions."

Robert Stavins argues for an economic approach to solving environmental problems and explains why "environmental economics" is not an oxymoron.

"...Lima is important because it calls for long-term action and has broad geographic participation. That is a sound foundation for ultimate success."

"China's and America's commitments create a sufficient foundation for meaningful future steps among the entire global community, beginning with the 2015 Paris agreement that is being drafted in Lima over the next two weeks. With the announced Chinese and American national determined contributions, the future Paris agreement would include countries that together account for more than 40 percent of global carbon emissions. With Europe already on board, the total amounts to more than 50 percent of the world's emissions."

"...[E]ven if divestment were to reduce the industry's financial resources, this would only serve to reduce fossil-fuel companies' efforts to develop emissions-cutting technologies such as carbon capture and storage. It also could slow development of new renewable energy sources by fossil-fuel companies pursuing sensible diversification strategies. Also, keep in mind that a major reason for recent declines in U.S. carbon emissions is our increased use of natural gas (a fossil fuel) instead of coal to generate electricity."

Improving end-use energy efficiency—that is, the energy-efficiency of individuals, households, and firms as they consume energy—is often cited as an important element in efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions. Arguments for improving energy efficiency usually rely on the idea that energy-efficient technologies will save end users money over time and thereby provide low-cost or no-cost options for reducing GHG emissions. However, some research suggests that energy-efficient technologies appear not to be adopted by consumers and businesses to the degree that would seem justified, even on a purely financial basis.

The international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change to be determined in Paris in December 2015 is “the greatest opportunity the world has had in 20 years to make meaningful progress on this exceptionally challenging issue,” Harvard Project on Climate Agreements (HPCA) Director Robert Stavins said in a Boston Globe op-ed in September. Stavins was in New York City during the week of the United Nations Climate Summit, which included numerous side events and a march that attracted several hundred thousand Americans calling for serious climate actions.

Linkage among emissions-reduction systems can reduce cost and advance equity, enhancing the chances for success of a new 2015 climate agreement.