Prioritizing Development A Cost Benefit Analysis of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals
Book contents
- Prioritizing Development
- Prioritizing Development
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Boxes
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Chapter 1 Benefits and Costs of Air Pollution Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda
- Chapter 2 Targets for Biodiversity and Deforestation
- Chapter 3 Benefits and Costs of the Climate Change Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda
- Chapter 4 Beyond Civil War
- Chapter 5 Data Revolution
- Chapter 6 Benefits and Costs of the Education Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda
- Chapter 7 Benefits and Costs of the Energy Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda
- Chapter 8 Benefits and Costs of the IFF Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda
- Chapter 9 Benefits and Costs of the Trade Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda
- Chapter 10 Benefits and Costs of the Health Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda
- Chapter 11 Benefits and Costs of the Noncommunicable Disease Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda
- Chapter 12 Benefits and Costs of the Women’s Health Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda
- Chapter 13 Benefits and Costs of TB Control for the Post-2015 Development Agenda
- Chapter 14 Benefits and Costs of the Infant Mortality Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda
- Chapter 15 Benefits and Costs of the HIV/AIDS Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda
- Chapter 16 Benefits and Costs of the Malaria Targets for the Post-2015 Consensus Project
- Chapter 17 Benefits and Costs of Digital Technology
- Chapter 18 Returns to Investment in Reducing Postharvest Food Losses and Increasing Agricultural Productivity Growth
- Chapter 19 Benefits and Costs of the Gender Equality Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda
- Chapter 20 Benefits and Costs of the Food and Nutrition Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda
- Chapter 21 Benefits and Costs of the Population and Demography Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda
- Chapter 22 Benefits and Costs of Two Science and Technology Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda
- Chapter 23 Global Benefits and Costs of Achieving Universal Coverage of Basic Water and Sanitation Services as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
- Chapter 24 Benefits and Costs of the Poverty Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda
- Chapter 25 Good Governance and the Sustainable Development Goals
- Conclusion
- Index
- References
Chapter 3 - Benefits and Costs of the Climate Change Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 May 2018
Edited by
Book contents
- Prioritizing Development
- Prioritizing Development
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Boxes
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Chapter 1 Benefits and Costs of Air Pollution Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda
- Chapter 2 Targets for Biodiversity and Deforestation
- Chapter 3 Benefits and Costs of the Climate Change Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda
- Chapter 4 Beyond Civil War
- Chapter 5 Data Revolution
- Chapter 6 Benefits and Costs of the Education Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda
- Chapter 7 Benefits and Costs of the Energy Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda
- Chapter 8 Benefits and Costs of the IFF Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda
- Chapter 9 Benefits and Costs of the Trade Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda
- Chapter 10 Benefits and Costs of the Health Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda
- Chapter 11 Benefits and Costs of the Noncommunicable Disease Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda
- Chapter 12 Benefits and Costs of the Women’s Health Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda
- Chapter 13 Benefits and Costs of TB Control for the Post-2015 Development Agenda
- Chapter 14 Benefits and Costs of the Infant Mortality Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda
- Chapter 15 Benefits and Costs of the HIV/AIDS Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda
- Chapter 16 Benefits and Costs of the Malaria Targets for the Post-2015 Consensus Project
- Chapter 17 Benefits and Costs of Digital Technology
- Chapter 18 Returns to Investment in Reducing Postharvest Food Losses and Increasing Agricultural Productivity Growth
- Chapter 19 Benefits and Costs of the Gender Equality Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda
- Chapter 20 Benefits and Costs of the Food and Nutrition Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda
- Chapter 21 Benefits and Costs of the Population and Demography Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda
- Chapter 22 Benefits and Costs of Two Science and Technology Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda
- Chapter 23 Global Benefits and Costs of Achieving Universal Coverage of Basic Water and Sanitation Services as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
- Chapter 24 Benefits and Costs of the Poverty Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda
- Chapter 25 Good Governance and the Sustainable Development Goals
- Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
The results of this paper suggest a reconsideration of traditional climate policy that was designed to limit the level of total emissions per year and/or atmospheric concentrations. The traditional emission target approach has faced political resistance due to excessive costs associated with current technological limitations to the integration of low-carbon energy. Moreover, it often conflicts with the continued pursuit of economic growth and development. Despite various emission reduction agreements, globally there has been a steady rise in annual emissions and there is a vital need to pursue policies that address the drivers of emissions and the inevitable effects of rising emissions through adaptation.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Prioritizing DevelopmentA Cost Benefit Analysis of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals, pp. 54 - 66Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Agrawal, A. (2010). “Local institutions and adaptation to climate change.” Social Dimensions of Climate Change: Equity and Vulnerability in a Warming World. Washington, DC: World Bank: 173–98.Google Scholar
Aldy, J. E., et al. (2003). “Thirteen plus one: a comparison of global climate policy architectures.” Climate Policy 3(4): 373–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldy, J. E. and Stavins, R. N. (2007). Architectures for Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anadon, L. D., et al. (2011). Transforming U.S. Energy Innovation. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School.Google Scholar
Barros, V. and Grand, M. C. (2002). Implications of a dynamic target of greenhouse gases emission reduction: the case of Argentina. Environment and Development Economics 7(3): 547–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanford, G. J., et al. (2013). “Harmonization vs. fragmentation: Overview of climate policy scenarios in EMF27.” Climatic Change: 1–14.Google Scholar
Bosello, F. (2004). Timing and Size of Adaptation, Mitigation and R&D investments in Climate Policy. Venice: Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.Google Scholar
Bosello, F., et al. (2012). An Analysis of Adaptation as a Response to Climate Change. Tewksbury MA: Copenhagen Consensus.Google Scholar
Bullis, K. (2014). “A Plan B for climate agreements.” MIT Technology Review 117(4): 84–86.Google Scholar
Clarke, L., et al. (2009). “International climate policy architectures: overview of the EMF 22 International Scenarios.” Energy Economics 31: S64–81.Google Scholar
Constable, J. (2011). The Green Mirage: Why a Low-Carbon Economy May Be Further Off Than We Think. London: Civitas.Google Scholar
Davis, S. J. and Caldeira, K. (2010). “Consumption-based accounting of CO(2) emissions.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107(12): 5687–92.Google Scholar
de Bruin, K., et al. (2009). Economic Aspects of Adaptation to Climate Change: Integrated Assessment Modelling of Adaptation Costs and Benefits. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
Edmonds, J., et al. (2012). “Energy and technology lessons since Rio.” Energy Economics 34: S7–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galiana, I. and Green, C. (2009). “Let the global technology race begin.” Nature 462(7273): 570–71.Google Scholar
Galiana, I. and Green, C. (2010). An Analysis of a Technology-led Climate Policy as a Response to Climate Change. Smart solutions to climate change: Comparing costs and benefits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haberl, H., et al. (2013). “Bioenergy: how much can we expect for 2050?” Environmental Research Letters 8(3): 031004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallegatte, S., et al. (2012). Investment Decision Making under Deep Uncertainty: Application to Climate Change. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda (HLP). (2013). A New Global Partnership: Eradicate Poverty and Transform Economies through Sustainable Development. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
Hoffert, M. (2011). “Governments must pay for clean-energy innovation.” Nature 472(7342): 137.Google Scholar
Hoffert, M. I., et al. (1998). “Energy implications of future stabilization of atmospheric CO2 content.” Nature 395(6705): 881–4.Google Scholar
Hunt, A. and Watkiss, P. (2011). “Climate change impacts and adaptation in cities: a review of the literature.” Climatic Change 104(1): 13–49.Google Scholar
International Energy Agency (IEA) (2013). Redrawing the Energy-Climate Map. World Energy Outlook Special Report. Paris: Author.Google Scholar
International Energy Agency (IEA) (2014). Energy Technology Perspectives 2014 – Executive Summary. Paris: Author.Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2014). Climate Change 2014, Mitigation of Climate Change. Working Group III Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jakob, M. and Steckel, J. C. (2013). “How climate change mitigation could harm development in poor countries.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change.Google Scholar
Jerneck, A. and Olsson, L. (2008). Adaptation and the poor: development, resilience and transition. Climate Policy 8(2): 170–182.Google Scholar
Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S. I. and McGee, J. (2013). Legitimacy in an era of fragmentation: The case of global climate governance. Global Environmental Politics 13(3): 56–78.Google Scholar
Klein, R. J., Schipper, E. L. F., and Dessai, S. (2005). Integrating mitigation and adaptation into climate and development policy: three research questions. Environmental Science & Policy 8(6): 579–588.Google Scholar
Kriegler, E., et al. (2014). “The role of technology for achieving climate policy objectives: overview of the EMF 27 study on global technology and climate policy strategies.” Climatic Change: 353–367.Google Scholar
Lemoine, D. and McJeon, H. C. (2013). “Trapped between two tails: trading off scientific uncertainties via climate targets.” Environmental Research Letters 8(3): 034019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meinshausen, M., et al. (2009). “Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 C.” Nature 458(7242): 1158–62.Google Scholar
Myhrvold, N. P. and Caldeira, K. (2012). “Greenhouse gases, climate change and the transition from coal to low-carbon electricity.” Environmental Research Letters 7(1): 014019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemet, G. F. (2009). “Demand-pull, technology-push, and government-led incentives for non-incremental technical change.” Research Policy 38(5): 700–9.Google Scholar
Peters, G. P., et al. (2011). “Growth in emission transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108(21): 8903–08.Google Scholar
Pouliotte, J., Smit, B., and Westerhoff, L. (2009). Adaptation and development: livelihoods and climate change in Subarnabad, Bangladesh. Climate and Development 1(1): 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogelj, J., et al. (2013). “Probabilistic cost estimates for climate change mitigation.” Nature 493(7430): 79–83.Google Scholar
Schilling, M. A. and Esmundo, M. (2009). “Technology S-curves in renewable energy alternatives: Analysis and implications for industry and government.” Energy Policy 37(5): 1767–81.Google Scholar
Schipper, L. and Pelling, M. (2006). Disaster risk, climate change and international development: scope for, and challenges to, integration. Disasters 30(1): 19–38.Google Scholar
Searchinger, T., et al. (2008). “Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change.” Science 319(5867): 1238–40.Google Scholar
Steckel, J. C., Jakob, M., Marschinski, R., and Luderer, G. (2011). From carbonization to decarbonization?—Past trends and future scenarios for China’s CO2 emissions. Energy Policy 39(6): 3443–55.Google Scholar
Tol, R. S. (2005). “Adaptation and mitigation: trade-offs in substance and methods.” Environmental Science & Policy 8(6): 572–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tol, R. S. (2012). “A cost–benefit analysis of the EU 20/20/2020 package.” Energy Policy 49: 288–95.Google Scholar
Tol, R. S. (2013). “Targets for global climate policy: an overview.” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 37(5): 911–28.Google Scholar
Victor, D. G. (2006). “Toward effective international cooperation on climate change: Numbers, interests and institutions.” Global Environmental Politics 6(3): 90–103.Google Scholar
World Economic Forum (WEF). (2013). The Green investment Report: The Ways and Means to Unlock Private Finance for Green Growth. Geneva: World Economic Forum.Google Scholar
Yuan, J., Hou, Y, and Xu, M. (2012). China’s 2020 carbon intensity target: Consistency, implementations, and policy implications. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16(7): 4970–81.Google Scholar
Zhang, Z. (2011). Assessing China’s carbon intensity pledge for 2020: stringency and credibility issues and their implications. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies 13(3): 219–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhu, Z. S., Liao, H., Cao, H. S., Wang, L., Wei, Y. M., and Yan, J. (2014). The differences of carbon intensity reduction rate across 89 countries in recent three decades. Applied Energy 113: 808–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 1
- Cited by