10.4.2.3 Institutional Considerations
In contrast to the single-actor paradigm, which assumes that society can be
identified with a unique optimizing decision maker, GHG emissions are, in fact,
controlled by a multitude of individual agents and multiple decision makers
that influence the transformation of individual to collective actions. Thus
far, decision analysis has strongly emphasized the most aggregated level of
government policy and neglected the multidimensionality of decision-making institutions
(Jaeger et al., 1998).
Although there are many country-specific differences in the relationships between
national, regional, and local governments, most analysts consider local authorities
to be the salient political actors. In addition to acting on their own, local
governments serve as an interface between citizens and the nation state, and
they are in regular contact with members of the community. O’Riordan et al. (1998) suggest that, as the need for more effective climate policy emerges,
it might be useful to broaden the national response strategy to incorporate
the local levels and so stimulate the very effective informal institutional
dynamics of individuals and households. The rise in the number of informal networks
of co-operation dispersed via schools, universities, religious communities and
other social groups is regarded as an important step towards including climate
change awareness into people’s everyday concerns. This is of great importance,
as the individual costs of contributing to climate change are less than the
consequent social costs, and thus individual agents generate a changing climate
that is socially suboptimal. Becoming aware of the gap between individual and
social rationality is assumed to stimulate effective mitigation and adapation
measures.
Striking the appropriate balance between mitigation and adaptation will be
a tedious process. The need for, and extent and costs of adaptation measures
in any region will be determined by the magnitude and nature of regional climate
change as a local manifestation of global climate change. How global climate
change unfolds will be determined by the total amount of GHG emissions that,
in turn, reflects nations’ willingness to undertake mitigation measures.
Toth (unpublished) points out that balancing mitigation and adaptation efforts
largely depends on how mitigation costs are related to net damages (primary
or gross damage minus damage averted through adaptation plus costs of adaptation).
Both mitigation costs and net damages, in turn, depend on some crucial baseline
assumptions: economic development and baseline emissions largely determine emission
reduction costs, while development and institutions influence adaptive capacity.
Different levels of globally agreed limits for climate change (or for atmospheric
GHG concentrations, as frequently discussed), entail different balances of mitigation
costs and net damages for individual nations. Considering the uncertainties
involved and future learning, climate stabilization will inevitably be an iterative
process. Nation states will determine their own national targets based on their
own exposure and their sensitivity to other countries’ exposure to climate
change. The global target emerges from consolidating national targets, possibly
involving side payments, in global negotiations. Simultaneously, agreement on
burden sharing and the agreed global target determines national costs. Compared
to the expected net damages associated with the global target, nation states
might reconsider their own national targets, especially as new information becomes
available on global and regional patterns and impacts of climate change. This
becomes the starting point for the next round of negotiations. It follows from
the above that establishing the “magic number” (i.e., the upper limit
for global climate change or GHG concentration in the atmosphere) will be a
long policy process, hopefully helped by improving science.
Mitigation and adaptation decisions related to anthropogenically induced climate
change differ. Mitigation decisions involve many countries, disperse benefits
globally over decades to centuries (with some near-term ancillary benefits),
are driven by public policy action, based on information available today, and
the relevant regulation will require rigorous enforcement. In contrast, adaptation
decisions involve a shorter time span between outlays and returns, related costs
and benefits accrue locally and their implementation involves local public policies
and private adaptation of the affected social agents, both based on improving
information. Local mitigation and adaptive capacities vary significantly across
regions and over time. A portfolio of mitigation and adaptation policies will
depend on local or national priorities and preferred approaches in combination
with international responsibilities.
|