Citizens' perceptions of justice in international climate policy: an empirical analysis

References

• Aldy, J. E., Ashton, J., Baron, R., Bodansky, D., Charnovitz, S., Diringer, E., & Wang, X. (2003). Beyond Kyoto, advancing the international effort against climate change. Arlington, VA: Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
   Google Scholar
• Bechtel, M., & Scheve, K. (2013). Mass support for global climate agreements depends on institutional design. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110, 13763–13768.
   Google Scholar
• Bosetti, V., & Frankel, J. A. (2011). Politically feasible emission target formulas to attain 460 ppm CO2 concentrations. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 6, 86–109. doi: 10.1093/reep/rer022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brekke, K. A., & Johansson-Stenman, O. (2008). The behavioral economics of climate change’. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 24(2), 280–297. doi: 10.1093/oxrep/grn012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlsson, F., Kataria, M., Krupnick, A., Lampi, E., Löfgren, Å., & Sterner, T. (2013). A fair share: Burden-sharing preferences in the United States and China. Resource and Energy Economics, 35, 1–17. doi: 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2012.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlsson, F., Kataria, M., Lampi, E., Löfgren, Å., & Sterner, T. (2011). Is fairness blind? – The effect of framing on preferences for effort-sharing rules. Ecological Economics, 70, 1529–1535. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.03.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chakravarty, S., Chikkatur, A., de Coninck, H., Pacala, S., Socolow, R., & Tavoni, M. (2009). Sharing global CO2 emission reductions among one billion high emitters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 106, 11884–11888. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0905232106
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, C., Lee, S-Y., & Stevenson, H. W. (1995). Response style and cross-cultural comparisons of rating scales among East Asian and North American students. Psychological Science, 6(3), 170–175. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00327.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dannenberg, A., Sturm, B., & Vogt, C. (2010). Do equity preferences matter for climate negotiators? An experimental investigation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 47, 91–109. doi: 10.1007/s10640-010-9366-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• den Elzen, M. G. J., & Höhne, N. (2010). Sharing the reduction effort to limit global warming to 2°C. Climate Policy, 10, 247–260.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• den Elzen, M. G. J., Höhne, N., Brouns, B., Winkler, H., & Ott, H. E. (2007). Differentiation of countries’ future commitments in a post-2012 climate regime. An assessment of the ‘South–North Dialogue’ proposal. Environmental Science and Policy, 10, 185–203. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2006.10.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2011). Special Eurobarometer 372. Climate Change (Report). Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Furlong, G. T. (2005). The conflict resolution toolbox. Models & maps for analyzing, diagnosing, and resolving conflict. Mississauga, ON: John Wiley & Sons Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Gächter, S., & Riedl, A. (2006). Dividing justly in bargaining problems with claims. Social Choice and Welfare, 27, 571–594. doi: 10.1007/s00355-006-0141-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garibaldi, J. A. (2014). The economics of boldness: Equity, action, and hope. Climate Policy, 14, 82–101. doi:10.1080/14693062.2013.831314
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grubb, M. (2006). The economics of climate damages and stabilization after the Stern Review. Climate Policy, 6, 505–508. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2006.9685616
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupta, J. (2012). Negotiating challenges and climate change. Climate Policy, 12, 630–644. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2012.693392
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammar, H., & Jagers, S. C. (2006). Can trust in politicians explain individuals’ support for climate policy? The case of CO2 tax. Climate Policy, 5, 613–625. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2006.9685582
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hjerpe, M., Löfgren, Å., Linnér, B., Hennlock, M., Sterner, T., & Jagers, S. (2011). Common ground for effort sharing? Preferred principles for distributing climate mitigation efforts (Working Papers in Economics No. 491). Gothenberg: University of Gothenburg.
   Google Scholar
• Hof, A. F., & den Elzen, M. G. J. (2010). The effect of different historical emissions datasets on emission targets of the sectoral mitigation approach triptych. Climate Policy, 10, 684–704. doi: 10.3763/cpol.2009.0649
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Höhne, N., den Elzen, M., & Escalante, D. (2014). Regional GHG reduction targets based on effort sharing: A comparison of studies. Climate Policy, 14, 122–147. doi:10.1080/14693062.2014.849452
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IPCC. (2013). Summary for policymakers. In T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, & P. M. Midgley (Eds.) Climate Change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge/New York. NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• IPCC. (2014). Summary for policymakers. In: C. B. Field, V. R. Barros, D. J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. D. Mastrandrea, T. E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K. L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P. R. Mastrandrea, & L. L. White (Eds.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 1–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jacoby, H. D., Babiker, M. H., Paltsev, S., & Reilly, J. M. (2010). Sharing the burden of GHG reductions. In J. E. Aldy & R. Stavins (Eds.), Post-Kyoto international climate policy (pp. 753–785). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Jagers, S. C., & Hammar, H. (2009). Environmental taxation for good and for bad: On individuals’ reluctance to mitigate climate change via CO2-tax vis-à-vis alternative policy instruments. Environmental Politics, 18, 218–237. doi: 10.1080/09644010802682601
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jagers, S. C., Löfgren, Å., & Stripple, J. (2010). Attitudes to personal carbon allowances: Political trust, fairness and ideology. Climate Policy, 10, 410–431. doi: 10.3763/cpol.2009.0673
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kallbekken, S., Sælen, H., & Underdal, A. (2014). Equity and spectrum of mitigation commitments in the 2015 agreement. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers (norden).
   Google Scholar
• Kanitkar, T., Jayaraman, T., D'Souza, M., Sanwal, M., Purkayastha, P., & Talwar, R. (2010, June). Meeting equity in a finite carbon world: Global carbon budgets and burden-sharing in mitigation actions (Background Paper for the Conference on Global Carbon Budgets and Equity in Climate Change). Mumbai: Tata Institute of Social Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Kesternich, M., Löschel, A., & Ziegler, A. (2014). Negotiating weights for burden sharing rules among heterogeneous parties: Empirical evidence from a survey among delegates in international climate negotiations (ZEW Discussion Paper No. 14–031). Mannheim: ZEW.
   Google Scholar
• King, M. F., & Bruner, G. C. (2000). Social desirability bias: A neglected aspect of validity testing. Psychology & Marketing, 17(2), 79–103. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(200002)17:2<79::AID-MAR2>3.0.CO;2-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klinsky, S., & Dowlatabadi, H. (2009). Conceptualizations of justice in climate policy. Climate Policy, 9, 88–108. doi: 10.3763/cpol.2007.0468
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konow, J. (2000). Fair shares: Accountability and cognitive dissonance in allocation decisions. American Economic Review, 90, 1072–1091. doi: 10.1257/aer.90.4.1072
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kriss, P., Loewenstein, G., Wang, X., & Weber, R. (2011). Behind the veil of ignorance: Self-serving bias in climate change negotiations. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 602–615.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krumpal, I. (2013). Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: A literature review. Quality & Quantity, 47, 2025–2047. doi: 10.1007/s11135-011-9640-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lange, A., Löschel, A., Vogt, C., & Ziegler, A. (2010). On the self-interested use of equity in international climate negotiations. European Economic Review, 54, 359–375. doi: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2009.08.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Feinberg, G., & Howe, P. (2012). Climate change in the American mind: Americans’ global warming beliefs and attitudes in September, 2012. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change, Yale University and George Mason University. Retrieved from http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/Climate-Beliefs-September-2012.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Lind, A. E., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice (Critical Issues in Social Justice). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nederhoff, A. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias – a review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 263–280. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420150303
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oberholzer-Gee, F., Bohnet, I., & Frey, B. (1997). Fairness and competence in democratic decisions. Public Choice, 91(1), 89–105. doi: 10.1023/A:1004933219501
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Okereke, C. (2010). Climate justice and the international regime. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1, 462–474.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oppenheimer, M. (2005). Defining dangerous anthropogenic interference: The role of science, the limits of science. Risk Analysis, 25, 1399–1407. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00687.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ringius, L., Torvanger, A., & Underdal, A. (2002). Burden sharing and fairness principles in international climate policy, international environmental agreements. Politics Law and Economics, 2, 1–22.
   Google Scholar
• Rose, A., Stevens, B., Edmonds, J., & Wise, M. (1998). International equity and differentiation in global warming policy: An application to tradeable emission permits. Environmental and Resource Economics, 12, 25–51. doi: 10.1023/A:1008262407777
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torgler, B., & Garcia-Valinas, M. A. (2007). The determinants of individuals’ attitudes towards preventing environmental damage. Ecological Economics, 63, 536–552. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.12.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UNEP. (2013). The emissions gap report 2013. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme.
   Google Scholar
• UNFCCC. (1992). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. New York, NY: United Nations.
   Google Scholar
• UNFCCC. (2009). Copenhagen Accord (FCCC/CP/2009/L.7). New York, NY: United Nations.
   Google Scholar
• UNFCCC. (2012). Report on the Workshop on Equitable Access to Sustainable Development. Revised report by the Chair (Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention, FCCC/AWGLCA/2012/INF.3/Rev.1). Retrieved from http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2012/awglca15/eng/inf03r01.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Van Ruijven, B., Weitzel, M., den Elzen, M. G. J., Hof, A., van Vuuren, D. P., Peterson, S., & Narita, D. (2012). Emission allowances and mitigation costs of China and India resulting from different effort-sharing approaches. Energy Policy, 46, 116–134. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.03.042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winkler, H., & Rajamani, L. (2014). CBDR&RC in a regime applicable to all. Climate Policy, 14, 102–121. doi:10.1080/14693062.2013.791184
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu, H., Wang, B., Zhang, Y-J., Wanh, S., & Wei, Y-M. (2013). Public perception of climate change in China: Results from the questionnaire survey. Natural Hazards, 69, 459–472. doi: 10.1007/s11069-013-0711-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar