Global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions continued to rise to 2019: the aggregate reductions implied by current Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to 2030 would still make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot, and would only be compatible withlikely limiting warmingbelow 2°C if followed by much steeper decline, hence limiting warming to either level implies accelerated mitigation actions at all scales (robust evidence, high agreement). Since the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), important changes that have emerged include the specific objectives established in the Paris Agreement of 2015 (for temperature, adaptation and finance), rising climate impacts, and higher levels of societal awareness and support for climate action. The growth of global GHG emissions has slowed over the past decade, and delivering the updated NDCs to 2030 would turn this into decline, but the implied global emissions by 2030 exceed pathways consistent with 1.5°C by a large margin, and are near the upper end of the range of modelled pathways which keep temperatures likely limit warming to 2°C (with >65% probability). Continuing investments in carbon-intensive activities at scale will heighten the multitude of risks associated with climate change and impede societal and industrial transformation towards low-carbon development. Meeting the long-term temperature objective in the Paris Agreement therefore implies a rapid turn to an accelerating decline of GHG emissions towards ‘net zero’, which is implausible without urgent and ambitious action at all scales. The unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic has had far-reaching impacts on the global economic and social system, and recovery will present both challenges and opportunities for climate mitigation. {1.2, 1.3, 1.5, 1.6, Chapters 3 and 4}

While there are some trade-offs, effective and equitable climate policies are largely compatible with the broader goal of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty as enshrined in the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (robust evidence, high agreement). Climate mitigation is one of many goals that societies pursue in the context of sustainable development, as evidenced by the wide range of the SDGs. Climate mitigation has synergies and/or trade-offs with many other SDGs. There has been a strong relationship between development and GHG emissions, as historically both per capita and absolute emissions have risen with industrialisation. However, recent evidence shows countries can grow their economies while reducing emissions. Countries have different priorities in achieving the SDGs and reducing emissions as informed by their respective national conditions and capabilities. Given the differences in GHG emissions contributions, degree of vulnerabilities and impacts, as well as capacities within and between nations, equity and justice are important considerations for effective climate policy and for securing national and international support for deep decarbonisation. Achieving sustainable global development and eradicating poverty as enshrined in the 17 SDGS would involve effective and equitable climate policies at all levels from local to global scale. Failure to address questions of equity and justice over time can undermine social cohesion and stability. International cooperation can enhance efforts to achieve ambitious global climate mitigation in the context of sustainable development. {1.4, 1.6, Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 13 and 17}

The transition to a low-carbon economy depends on a wide range of closely intertwined drivers and constraints, including policies and technologies where notable advances over the past decade have opened up new and large-scale opportunities for deep decarbonisation, and for alternative development pathways which could deliver multiple social and developmental goals (robust evidence, medium agreement). Drivers for and constraints against low-carbon societal transition comprise economic and technological factors (the means by which services such as food, heating and shelter are provided and for whom, the emissions intensity of traded products, finance, and investment), socio-political issues (political economy, equity and fairness, social innovation and behaviour change), and institutional factors (legal framework and institutions, and the quality of international cooperation). In addition to being deeply intertwined all the factors matter to varying degrees, depending on the prevailing social, economic, cultural and political context. They often exert both push and pull forces at the same time, within and across different scales. The development and deployment of innovative technologies and systems at scale are important for achieving deep decarbonisation. In recent years, the cost of several low-carbon technologies has declined sharply, alongside rapid deployment. Over 20 countries have also sustained emission reductions, and many more have accelerated energy efficiency and/or land-use improvements. Overall, however, the global contribution is so far modest, at a few billion tonnes (tCO2-eq) of avoided emissions annually. {1.3, 1.4, Chapters 2, 4, 13 and 14}

Accelerating mitigation to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference within the climate system will require the integration of broadened assessment frameworks and tools that combine multiple perspectives, applied in a context of multi-level governance (robust evidence, medium agreement). Analysing a challenge on the scale of fully decarbonising our economies entails integration of multiple analytic frameworks. Approaches to risk assessment and resilience, established across IPCC Working Groups, are complemented by frameworks for probing the challenges in implementing mitigation. Aggregate frameworks include cost-effectiveness analysis towards given objectives, and cost-benefit analysis, both of which have been developing to take fuller account of advances in understanding risks and innovation, the dynamics of emitting systems and of climate impacts, and welfare economic theory including growing consensus on long-term discounting. Ethical frameworks consider the fairness of processes and outcomes which can help ameliorate distributional impacts across income groups, countries and generations. Transition and transformation frameworks explain and evaluate the dynamics of transitions to low-carbon systems arising from interactions amongst levels, with inevitable resistance from established socio-technical structures. Psychological, behavioural and political frameworks outline the constraints (and opportunities) arising from human psychology and the power of incumbent interests. A comprehensive understanding of climate mitigation must combine these multiple frameworks. Together with established risk frameworks, collectively these help to explain potential synergies and trade-offs in mitigation, imply a need for a wide portfolio of policies attuned to different actors and levels of decision-making, and underpin Just Transition strategies in diverse contexts. {1.2.2, 1.7, 1.8}

The speed, direction and depth of any transition will be determined by choices in the, environmental, technological, economic, socio-cultural and institutional realms (robust evidence, high agreement) . Transitions in specific systems can be gradual or rapid and disruptive. The pace of a transition can be impeded by ‘lock-in’ generated by existing physical capital, institutions, and social norms. The interaction between power, politics and economy is central in explaining why broad commitments do not always translate to urgent action. At the same time, attention to and support for climate policies and low-carbon societal transition has generally increased, as the impacts have become more salient. Both public and private financing and financial structures strongly affect the scale and balance of high- and low-carbon investments. COVID-19 has strained public finances, and integrating climate finance into ongoing recovery strategies, nationally and internationally, can accelerate the diffusion of low-carbon technologies and also help poorer countries to minimise future stranded assets. Societal and behavioural norms, regulations and institutions are essential conditions to accelerate low-carbon transitions in multiple sectors, whilst addressing distributional concerns endemic to any major transition. {1.3.3, 1.4, 1.8, Chapters 2, 4 and 15, and Cross-Chapter Box 1 in this chapter}

Achieving the global transition to a low-carbon, climate-resilient and sustainable world requires purposeful and increasingly coordinated planning and decisions at many scales of governance including local, sub-national, national and global levels (robust evidence, high agreement). Accelerating mitigation globally would imply strengthening policies adopted to date, expanding the effort across options, sectors, and countries, and broadening responses to include more diverse actors and societal processes at multiple – including international – levels. Effective governance of climate change entails strong action across multiple jurisdictions and decision-making levels, including regular evaluation and learning. Choices that cause climate change as well as the processes for making and implementing relevant decisions involve a range of non-nation state actors such as cities, businesses, and civil society organisations. At global, national and sub-national levels, climate change actions are interwoven with and embedded in the context of much broader social, economic and political goals. Therefore, the governance required to address climate change has to navigate power, political, economic, and social dynamics at all levels of decision-making. Effective climate-governing institutions, and openness to experimentation on a variety of institutional arrangements, policies and programmes can play a vital role in engaging stakeholders and building momentum for effective climate action. {1.4, 1.9, Chapters 8, 15 and 17}

This report (AR6 WGIII) aims to assess new literature on climate mitigation including implications for global sustainable development. In this Sixth Assessment Cycle the IPCChas also published three Special Reports, 1 all of which emphasise the rising threat of climate change and the implications for more ambitious mitigation efforts at all scales. At the same time, the Paris Agreement (PA) and the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development with its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), both adopted in 2015, set out a globally agreed agenda within which climate mitigation efforts must be located. Along with a better understanding of the physical science basis of climate change (AR6 WGI), and vulnerabilities, impacts, and adaptation (AR6 WGII), the landscape of climate mitigation has evolved substantially since the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5).

Since (IPCC 2014a), climate mitigation policies around the world have grown in both number and shape (Chapter 13). However, while the average rate of annual increase of CO2 emissions has declined (Section 1.3.2), GHG emissions globally continued to rise, underlining the urgency of the mitigation challenge (Chapters 2 and 3). Over 20 countries have cut absolute emissions alongside sustained economic growth, but the scale of mitigation action across countries remains varied and is generally much slower than the pace required to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement (Sections 1.3.2 and 2.7.2). Per capita GHG emissions between countries even at similar stages of economic development (based on GDP per capita) vary by a factor of three (Figure 1.6) and by more than two on consumption basis (Section 2.3).

The Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR1.5) underlined that humanity is now living with the ‘unifying lens of the Anthropocene’ (IPCC 2018a, pp. 52–53), that requires a sharpened focus on the impact of human activity on the climate system and the planet more broadly given ‘planetary boundaries’ (Steffen et al. 2015) including interdependencies of climate change and biodiversity (Dasgupta 2021). Recent literature assessed by Working Groups I and II of this AR6 underlines the urgency of climate action as cumulative CO2 emissions, along with other greenhouses gases (GHGs), drives the temperature change. Across AR6, global temperature changes are defined relative to the period 1850–1900, as in SR1.5 and collaboration with WGI enabled the use of AR6-calibrated emulators to assure consistency across the three Working Groups. The remaining ‘carbon budgets’ (see Annex I: Glossary) associated with 1.5°C and 2°C temperature targets equate to about one (for 1.5°C) to three (for 2°C) decades of current emissions, as from 2020, but with significant variation depending on multiple factors including other gases (Figure 2.7, and Cross-Working Group Box 1 in Chapter 3). For an outline of the WGIII approach to mitigation scenarios, emission pathways implied by the Paris goals, and the timing of peak and ‘net zero’ (see Glossary and FAQ 1.3), see Section 1.5 and Chapter 3.

Strong differences remain in responsibilities for, and capabilities to, take climate action within and between countries. These differences, as well as differences in the impact of climate change, point to the role of collective action in achieving urgent and ambitious global climate mitigation in the context of sustainable development, with attention to issues of equity and fairness as highlighted in several chapters of the report (Chapters 4, 5, 14, 15 and 17).

Innovation and industrial development of key technologies in several relevant sectors have transformed prospects for mitigation at much lower cost than previously assessed (Chapters 2 and 6–12). Large reductions in the cost of widely available renewable energy technologies, along with energy efficient technologies and behavioural changes (Chapters 5 and 9–11), can enable societies to provide services with much lower emissions. However, there are still significant differences in the ability to access and utilise low-carbon technologies across the world (Chapters 4, 15 and 16). New actors, including cities, businesses, and numerous non-state transnational alliances have emerged as important players in the global effort to tackle climate change (Chapters 13–16).

Along with continued development of concepts, models and technologies, there have been numerous insights from both the successes and failures of mitigation action that can inform future policy design and climate action. However, to date, policies and investments are still clearly inadequate to put the world in line with the PA’s aims (Chapters 13 and 15).

The greater the inertia in emission trends and carbon-intensive investments, the more that CO2 will continue to accumulate (Hilaire et al. 2019; IPCC 2019a). Overall, the literature points to the need for a more dynamic consideration of intertwined challenges concerning the transformation of key GHG-emitting systems: to minimise the trade-offs, and maximise the synergies, of delivering deep decarbonisation whilst enhancing sustainable development.

This chapter introduces readers to the AR6 WGIII Report and provides an overview of progress and challenges, in three parts. Part A (1.1–1.5) introduces the climate mitigation challenge, provides key findings and developments since previous assessment, and reviews the main drivers for, and constraints against accelerated climate action. Part B (1.6–1.8) provides an assessment of the key frameworks for understanding the climate mitigation challenge covering broad approaches such as sustainable development and more specific economic, political and ethical framings. Part C (1.9–1.12) briefly highlights the role of governance for steering and coordinating efforts to accelerate globally effective and equitable climate mitigation, notes the gaps in knowledge that have been identified in the process of assessment, and provides a road map to the rest of the report.

Since AR5, there have been notable multilateral efforts which help determine the context for current and future climate action. This section summarises key features of this evolving context.

This section provides a brief assessment of key factors and dynamics that drive, shape and/or limit climate mitigation in (i) economic factors: which include sectors and services, trade and leakage, finance and investment, and technological innovation; (ii) socio-political issues: which include political economy, social innovation, and equity and fairness; and (iii) institutional factors, which comprise policy, legal frameworks and international cooperation.

The AR5 introduced six ‘enabling conditions’ for shifting development pathways which are presented in Chapter 4 of this report and some of which overlap with the drivers reviewed here. However, the terminology of drivers and constraints have been chosen here to reflect the fact that each of these factors can serve as an enabling condition or a constraint to ambitious climate action depending on the context and how they are deployed. Often one sees the factors exerting both push and pull forces at the same time in the same and across different scales. For example, finance and investments can serve as a barrier or an enabler to climate action (Battiston et al. 2021). Similarly, political economy factors can align in favour of ambitious climate action or act in ways that inhibit strong cooperation and low-carbon transition. The other key insight from the assessment of the system drivers and constraints undertaken below is that none of the factors or conditions by themselves is more or less important than the others. In addition to being deeply intertwined all the factors matter in different measures with each exacting more or less force depending on the prevailing social, economic, cultural and political context. Often achieving accelerated mitigation would require effort to bring several of the factors in alignment in and across multiple levels of political or governance scales.

Scenarios are a powerful tool for exploring an uncertain future world against the background of alternative choices and development. Scenarios can be constructed using both narrative and quantitative methods. When these two methods are combined they provide complementary information and insights. Quantitative and narrative models are frequently used to represent scenarios to explore choices and challenges. The IPCC has a long history of assessing scenarios (Nakicenovic et al. 2000; van Vuuren et al. 2011, 2014) (see also AR6 WGI Section 1.6 for a history of scenarios within the IPCC). This WGIII assessment employs a wide range of qualitative and quantitative scenarios including quantitative scenarios developed through a wide and heterogeneous set of tools ranging from spreadsheets to complex computational models (Annex III: Scenarios and Modelling Methods provides further discussion and examples of computational models).

The concept of an illustrative pathway (IP) was introduced in the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5ºC (IPCC 2018b) to highlight a subset of the quantitative scenarios, drawn from a larger pool of published literature, with specific characteristics that would help represent some of the key findings emerging from the assessment in terms of different strategies, ambitions and options available to achieve the Paris goals.

Integrated assessment models (IAMs) are the primary tools for quantitatively evaluating the technological and macroeconomic implications of decarbonisation, particularly for global long-term pathways. They broadly divide into ‘stylised aggregate benefit-cost models’, and more complex ‘detailed process’ IAMs (Weyant 2017), often mirroring the benefit-cost and cost-effective approaches outlined in Section 1.7.1, with more detailed classification in, for example, Nikas et al. (2019). IAMs embody a number of structural and socio-demographic assumptions and include multiple modelling approaches, ranging from economic optimising behaviour to simulation (see Annex III). Detailed process models can include energy system models used to analyse decarbonisation and ‘net zero’ scenarios by international agencies (e.g., IEA 2020a).

Calculating cost-effective trajectories towards given goals typically involves detailed process IAMs. Often these calculate the dynamic portfolio of technologies consistent with a given climate target. Some track records of technology forecasting in IAMs are outlined in Section 2.5.4, and Box 16.1. Climate targets may be imposed in models in a variety of ways that include, but are not limited to, constraints on emissions or cumulated emissions (carbon budgets), and the pricing of emissions. The time-path of mitigation costs calculated through these models may be translated into ‘shadow prices’ that (like the social cost of carbon; SCC) offer a benchmark to assess the cost-effectiveness of investments, as used by some governments and companies (Section 1.8.2).

Scenarios in the IPCC and AR6. For AR6, WGIII received submissions of more than 2500 model-based scenarios published in the scientific literature. Such scenarios, which explore different possible evolutions of future energy and land use (with or without climate policy) and associated emissions, are made available through an interactive AR6 scenario database. The main characteristics of pathways in relation to ‘net zero’ emissions and remaining ‘carbon budgets’ are summarised in Box 3.5 in Chapter 3. The warming contribution of CO2 is very closely related to cumulative CO2 emissions, but the remaining ‘carbon budget’ for a given warming depends strongly inter alia on emissions of other GHGs; for targets below 2°C this may affect the corresponding ‘carbon budget’ by about ±220 GtCO2, compared to central estimates of around 500 GtCO2 (for 1.5°C) and 1350 GtCO2 (for 2°C) (AR6 WGI, Table SPM.2) (Cross-Working Group Box 1 in Chapter 3).

Pathways and ‘net zero’. The date at which the world needs aggregate emissions to reach net zero for Paris-consistent temperature goals depends both on progress in reducing non-CO2GHG emissions and near-term progress in reducing CO2 emissions. Faster progress in the near term extends the date at which net zero must be reached, while conversely, slower near-term progress brings the date even closer to the present. Some of the modelled 1.5°C pathways with limited overshoot cut global CO2 emissions in half until 2030, which allows for a more gradual decline thereafter, reaching net zero CO2 after 2050; also, net zero GHGs occurs later, with remaining emissions of some non-CO2GHGs compensated by ‘net negative’ CO2 (see Glossary and FAQ 1.3, and Cross-Chapter Box 3 in Chapter 3).

Drawing from the scenarios database, five Illustrative Mitigation Pathways (IMPs) were defined for this report (Figure 3.5 and Table 1.1). These are introduced here, with a more complete description and discussion provided in Section 3.2.5. These IMPs were chosen to illustrate key themes with respect to mitigation strategies across the entire WGIII assessment. The IMPs embody both a storyline, which describes in narrative form the key socio-economic characteristics of that scenario, and a quantitative illustration providing numerical values that are internally consistent and comparable across chapters of this report. Quantitative IMPs can be associated directly with specific human activities and provide a quantitative point of reference that links activities in different parts of socio-economic systems. Some parts of the report draw on these quantitative scenarios, whilst others use only the narratives. No assessment of the likelihood of each IMP has been made (as they reflect both human choice and deep uncertainty).

The IMPs are organised around two dimensions: the level of ambition consistent with meeting Paris goals, and the scenario features (Figure 1.4). The IMPs explore different pathways potentially consistent with meeting the long-term temperature goals of the Paris Agreement. As detailed in Section 3.2.5 and in Chapter 4, a pathway of Gradual Strengthening of current policies (IMP-GS) to 2030, if followed by very fast reductions, may stay below 2°C. The IMP-NEG pathway, with somewhat deeper emission cutbacks to 2030, might enable 1.5°C to be reached but only after significant overshoot, through the subsequent extensive use of CDR in the energy and the industry sectors to achieve net negative global emissions, as discussed in Chapters 3, 6, 7, 10 and 12.

Three other IMPs illustrate different features of technology scenarios with more short-term rapid emission reductions, which could deliver outcomes compatible with the temperature range in the Paris Agreement without large overshoot. Based on the assessment in Section 5.3.3, one key mitigation strategy would be to rely on the opportunities for reducing demand (IMP-LD). Chapters 6 and 7–11 show how energy systems based on accelerated deep renewable energy penetration and electrification can also provide a pathway to deep mitigation (IMP-REN). Chapters 3, 4 and 17 provide insights into how shifting development pathways can lead to deep emission reductions and achieve sustainable development goals (IMP-SP).

These pathways can be implemented with different levels of ambition, that can be measured through the classes (C) of temperature levels from the scenarios database, see Chapter 3 (Table 3.2). In the IMP framework, Section 3.2.5 presents and explores quantitative scenarios that can limit warming to 1.5°C (with a probability of 50% or greater, i.e., C1 for the illustrated quantification of LD, SP and REN, and C2 for NEG scenario), along with other GS pathways which keep warming below 2°C with a probability of 67% or greater (C3). In addition to these primary IMPs, the full scenario database contains sensitivity cases that explore alternative warming levels.

In addition to the IMPs two additional scenarios were selected, which illustrate the consequences of current policies and pledges. Current Policies (CurPol) explores the consequences of continuing along the path of implemented climate policies in 2020 and only a Gradual Strengthening after that, drawing on numerous such scenarios in the literature. Moderate Action (ModAct ) explores the impact of implementing NDCs to 2030, but without further strengthening: both result in global mean temperature above 2°C. They provide benchmarks against which to compare the IMPs.

Table 1.1 summarises the main storyline elements of the reference scenarios and each IMP.

Table 1.1 | Illustrative Mitigation Pathways used in AR6.

What the IMPs do and don’t do. The IMPs are, as their name implies, a set of scenarios meant to illustrate some important themes that run through the entire WGIII assessment. They illustrate that the climate outcomes that individuals and society will face in the century ahead depend on individual and societal choices. In addition, they illustrate that there are multiple ways to successful achievement of Paris long-term temperature goals.

IMPs are not intended to be comprehensive. They are not intended to illustrate all possible themes in this report. They do not, for example, attempt to illustrate the range of alternative socio-economic pathways against which efforts to implement Paris goals may be set, or to reflect variations in potential regional development pathways. They do not explore issues around income distribution or environmental justice, but assume implicitly that where and how action occurs can be separated from who pays, in ways to adequately address such issues. They are essentially pathways of technological evolution and demand shifts reflecting broad global trends in social choice. The IMPs do not directly assess issues of realisation linked to the ‘drivers and constraints’ summarised in our previous section, and the quantifications use, for the most part, models that are grounded mainly in the Aggregate Economics Frameworks (Section 7.1). As such they reflect primarily the geophysical, economic and technological Dimensions of Assessment, but can be assessed in relation to the full set of Feasibility criteria (Section 1.8.1).

Together the IMPs provide illustrations of potential future developments that can be shaped by human choices, including: Where are current policies and pledges leading? What is needed to reach specific temperature goals under varying assumptions? What are the consequences of different strategies to meet climate targets (i.e., demand-side strategy, a renewable energy strategy or a strategy with a role for net negative emissions)? What are the consequences of delay? What are the implications for other SDGs of various climate mitigation pathways?

This chapter now sets out approaches to understanding the mitigation challenge, working from its broad location in the context of wider aspirations for sustainable development, then identifying specific analytic approaches, before summarising the corresponding main dimensions used for the assessment of options and pathways in much of the report.

Climate change is unprecedented in its scope (sectors, actors and countries), depth (major transformations) and time scales (over generations). As such, it creates unique challenges for analysis. It has been called ‘the greatest market failure in history’ (Stern 2007); the ‘perfect moral storm’ (Gardiner 2006) and a ‘super wicked problem’ (Lazarus 2009; Levin et al. 2012) – one which appears difficult to solve through the traditional tools and assumptions of social organisation and analysis.

To complement the extensive literature on risks and decision-making under uncertainty reviewed in AR6 WGII (notably, Chapter 19), this section summarises insights and developments in key analytic frameworks and tools particularly relevant to understanding specific mitigation strategies, policies and other actions, including explaining the observed if limited progress to date. Organised partly as reflected in the quotes above, these include aggregated (principally, economic) frameworks to evaluate system-level choices; ethical perspectives on values and equity including stages of development and distributional concerns; and transition frameworks which focus on the processes and actors involved in major technological and social transitions. These need to be complemented by a fourth set of approaches which shine more light on psychological/behavioural and political factors. All these frameworks are relevant, and together they point to the multiple perspectives and actions required if the positive drivers of emission reduction summarised in Section 4 are to outweigh the barriers and overcome the constraints.

Previous sections have highlighted the multiple factors that drive and constrain climate action, the complex interconnection between climate mitigation and other societal objectives, and the diversity of analytical frames for interpreting these connections. Despite the complexities, there are signs of progress including increased societal awareness, change in social attitudes, policy commitments by a broad range of actors and sustained emission reductions in some jurisdictions. Nevertheless, emission trends at the global level remains incompatible with the goals agreed in the Paris Agreement. Fundamentally, the challenge of how best to urgently scale up and speed up the climate-mitigation effort at all scales – from local to global – to the pace needed to address the climate challenge is that of governance understood as ‘modes and mechanisms to steer society’ (Jordan et al. 2015). The concept of governance encompasses the ability to plan and create the organisations needed to achieve a desired goal (Güney 2017) and the process of interaction among actors involved in a common problem for making and implementing decisions (Kooiman 2003; Hufty 2012).

Climate change governance has been projected as conscious transformation at unprecedented scale and speed involving a contest of ideas and experimentation across scales of authority and jurisdiction (Hildén et al. 2017; Kivimaa et al. 2017; Laakso et al. 2017; Gordon 2018; van der Heijden 2018). Yet, there remains a sense that achieving the urgent transition to a low-carbon, climate-resilient and sustainable world requires significant innovation in governance (Hoffmann 2011; Stevenson and Dryzek 2013; Aykut 2016).

Starting from an initial focus on multilateral agreements, climate change governance has long evolved into a complex polycentric structure that spans from the global to national and sub-national levels, with ‘multiple parallel initiatives involving a range of actors at different levels of governance’ (Okereke et al. 2009) and relying on both formal and informal networks and policy channels (Bulkeley et al. 2014; Jordan et al. 2015). At the international level, implementation of the Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC more broadly is proceeding in parallel with other activities in an increasingly diverse landscape of loosely coordinated institutions, constituting ‘regime complex’ (Keohane and Victor 2011 ), and new cooperative efforts demonstrate an evolution in the shifting authority given to actors at different levels of governance (Chan et al. 2018).

Multi-level governance has been used to highlight the notion that the processes involved in making and implementing decisions on climate change are no longer the exclusive preserve of government actors but rather involve a range of non-nation state actors such as cities, businesses, and civil society organisations (IPCC 2014a; Bäckstrand et al. 2017; Jordan et al. 2018) (Chapter 13, and Sections 13.3.1 and 13.5.2). Increased multi-level participation of sub-national actors, along with a diversity of other transnational and non-state actors has helped to facilitate increased awareness, experimentation, innovation, learning and achieving benefits at multiple scales. Multi-level participation in governance systems can help to build coalitions to support climate change mitigation policies (Roberts et al. 2018) and fragmentation has the potential to take cooperative and even synergistic forms (Biermann et al. 2009).

However, there is no guarantee that multi-level governance can successfully deal with complex human-ecological systems (York et al. 2005; Biermann et al. 2017; Di Gregorio et al. 2019). Multi-level governance can contribute to an extremely polarised discussion and policy blockage rather than enabling policy innovation (Fisher and Leifeld 2019). A fragmented governance landscape may lead to coordination and legitimacy gaps undermining the regime (Nasiritousi and Bäckstrand 2019). The realities of the ‘drivers and constraints’ detailed in Section 4, the ‘glocal’ nature of climate change, the divided authority in world politics, diverse preferences of public and private entities across the spectrum, and pervasive suspicions of free riding, imply the challenge as how to incrementally deepen cooperation in a polycentric global system, rather than seeking a single, integrated governance (Keohane and Victor 2016).

Crucially, climate governance takes place in the context of embedded power relations, operating in global, national and local contexts. Effective rules and institutions to govern climate change are more likely to emerge where and when power structures and interests favour action. However widespread and enduring cooperation can only be expected when the benefits outweigh the cost of cooperation and when the interests of key actors are sufficiently aligned (Barrett 1994; Finus and Rübbelke 2008; Victor 2011; Mainali et al. 2018; Tulkens 2019). Investigating the distribution and role of hard and soft power resources, capacities and power relations within and across different jurisdictional levels is therefore important to uncover hindrances to effective climate governance (Marquardt 2017). Institutions at international and national levels are also critical as they have the ability to mediate the power and interest of actors, and sustain cooperation based on equity and fair rules and outcomes. Governance, in fact, helps to align and moderate the interests of actors as well as to shift perceptions, including the negative, burden-sharing narratives that often accompany discussion about climate action, especially in international negotiations. It is also useful for engaging the wider public and international networks in imagining low-carbon societies (e.g., Levy and Spicer 2013; Milkoreit 2017; Nikoleris et al. 2017; Wapner and Elver 2017; Bengtsson Sonesson et al. 2019; Fatemi et al. 2020). Experimentation also represents an important source of governance innovation and capability formation, linked to global knowledge and technology flows, which could reshape emergent socio-technical regimes and so contribute to alternative development pathways (Berkhout et al. 2010; Roberts et al. 2018; Turnheim et al. 2018; Lo and Castán Broto 2019).

Global conditions have changed substantially since the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report in 2014. The Paris Agreement and the SDGs provided a new international context, but global intergovernmental cooperation has been under intense stress. Growing direct impacts of climate change are unambiguous and movements of protest and activism – in countries and transnational organisations at many levels – have grown. Global emissions growth had slowed but not stopped up to 2018/19, albeit with more diverse national trends. Growing numbers of countries have adopted ‘net zero’ CO2 and/or GHG emission goals and decarbonisation or low-carbon growth strategies, but the current NDCs to 2030 collectively would barely reduce global emissions below present levels (Section 1.3.3). An unfolding technology revolution is making significant contributions in some countries, but as yet its global impact is limited. Global climate change can only be tackled within, and if integrated with, the wider context of sustainable development, and related social goals including equity concerns. Countries and their populations have many conflicting priorities. Developing countries in particular have multiple urgent needs associated with earlier stages of sustainable development as reflected in the non-climate SDGs. Developed countries are amongst the most unsustainable in terms of overall consumption, but also face social constraints particularly arising from distributional impacts of climate policies.

The assessment of the key drivers for, and barriers against mitigation undertaken in this chapter underscore the complexity and multi-dimensional nature of climate mitigation. Historically, much of the academic analysis of mitigating climate change, particularly global approaches, has focused on modelling costs and pathways, and discussion about ‘optimal’ policy instruments. Developments since AR5 have continued to highlight the role of a wide range of factors intersecting the political, economic, social and institutional domains. Yet despite such complexities, there are signs of progress emerging from years of policy effort in terms of technology, social attitudes, and emission reductions in some countries, with tentative signs of impact on the trajectory of global emissions. The challenge remains how best to urgently scale up and speed up the climate mitigation effort at all scales – from local to global – to achieve the level of mitigation needed to address the problem as indicated by climate science. A related challenge is how to ensure that mitigation effort and any associated benefits of action are distributed fairly within and between countries and aligned to the overarching objective of global sustainable development. Lastly, globally effective and efficient mitigation will require international cooperation especially in the realms of finance and technology.

Multiple frameworks of analytic assessment, adapted to the realities of climate change mitigation, are therefore required. We identified four main groups. Aggregate economic frameworks – including environmental costs or goals, and with due attention to implied behavioural, distributional and dynamic assumptions – can provide insights about trade-offs, cost-effectiveness and policies for delivering agreed goals. Ethical frameworks are equally essential to inform both international and domestic discourse and decisions, including the relationship with international (and intergenerational) responsibilities, related financial systems, and domestic policy design in all countries. Explicit frameworks for analysing transition and transformation across multiple sectors need to draw on both socio-technical transition literatures, and those on social transformation. Finally, literatures on psychology, behaviour and political sciences can illuminate obstacles that have impeded progress to date and suggest ways to overcome them.

No single analytical framework, or single discipline, on its own can offer a comprehensive assessment of climate change mitigation. Together they point to the relevance of growing literatures and discourses on Just Transitions, and the role of governance at multiple levels. Ultimately all these frameworks are needed to inform the decisions required to deepen and connect the scattered elements of progress to date, and hence accelerate progress towards agreed goals and multiple dimensions of climate change mitigation in the context of sustainable development.

Despite huge expansion in the literature (Callaghan et al. 2020), knowledge gaps remain. Modeling still struggles to bring together detailed physical and economic climate impacts and mitigation, with limited representation of financial and distributional dynamics. There are few interdisciplinary tools which apply theories of transition and transformation to questions of economic and social impacts, compounded by remaining uncertainties concerning the role of new technological sets, international instruments, policy and political evaluation.

One scan of future research needs suggests three priority areas (Roberts et al. 2020): (i) human welfare-focused development (e.g., reducing inequality); (ii) how the historic position of states within international power relations conditions their ability to respond to climate change; (iii) transition dynamics and the flexibility of institutions to drive towards low-carbon development pathways. There remain gaps in understanding how international dynamics and agreements filter down to affect constituencies and local implementation. Literature on the potential for supply-side agreements, in which producers agree to restrict the supply of fossil fuels (e.g., Asheim et al. 2019) is limited but gaining increasing academic attention.

Nature is under pressure both at land and at sea, as demonstrated by declining biodiversity (IPBES 2019). Climate policies could increase the pressure on land and oceans (IPCC 2019c,b), with insufficient attention to relationships between biodiversity and climate agreements and associated policies. IPBES aims to coordinate with the IPCC more directly, but literature will be required to support these reports.

Compounding these gaps is the fact that socially oriented, agriculture-related options, where human and non-human systems intersect most obviously, remain under-researched (e.g., Balasubramanya and Stifel 2020). Efforts to engage with policies here, especially framed around ecosystem services, have often neglected their ‘practical fitness’ in favour of focusing on their ‘institutional fitness’, which needs to be addressed in future research (Stevenson et al. 2021).

The relative roles of short-term mitigation policies and long-term investments, including government and financial decision-making tools, remains inadequately explored. Strategic investments may include city planning, public transport, EV-charging networks, and CCU/CCS. Understanding how international treaties can increase incentives to make such investments is all the more salient in the aftermath of COVID-19, on which research is necessarily young but rapidly growing. Finally, the economic, institutional and political strategies to close the gap between NDCs, actual implementation, and mitigation goals – informed by the PA and the UNFCCC Global Stocktake – require much further research.

This Sixth Assessment Report covers mitigation in five main parts (Figure 1.9), namely: introduction and frameworks; emission trends, scenarios and pathways; sectors; institutional dimensions including national and international policy, financial and technological mitigation drivers; and conclusions.

Chapters 2 to 5 cover the big picture trends, drivers and projections at national and global levels. Chapter 2 analyses emission trends and drivers to date. Chapter 3 presents long-term global scenarios, including the projected economic and other characteristics of mitigation through to the balancing of sources and sinks through the second half of this century, and the implications for global temperature change and risks. Chapter 4 explores the shorter-term prospects including NDCs, and the possibilities for accelerating mitigation out to 2050 in the context of sustainable development at the national, regional and international scales. Chapter 5, a new chapter for IPCC Assessments, focuses upon the role of services and derived demand for energy and land use, and the social dimensions.

Chapters 6 to 12 examine sectoral contributions and possibilities for mitigation. Chapter 6 summarises characteristics and trends in the energy sector, specifically supply, including the remarkable changes in the cost of some key technologies since AR5. Chapter 7 examines the roles of AFOLU, drawing upon and updating the recent Special Report, including the potential tensions between the multiple uses of land. Chapter 8 presents a holistic view of the trends and pressures of urban systems, as both a challenge and an opportunity for mitigation. Chapters 9 and 10 then examine two sectors which entwine with, but go well beyond, urban systems: buildings (Chapter 9) including construction materials and zero-carbon buildings; and transport (Chapter 10), including shipping and aviation and a wider look at mobility as a general service. Chapter 11 explores the contribution of industry, including supply chain developments, resource efficiency/circular economy, and the cross-system implications of decarbonisation for industrial systems. Finally, Chapter 12 takes a cross-sectoral perspective and explores cross-cutting issues like the interactions of biomass energy, food and land, and carbon dioxide removal.

Four chapters then review thematic issues in implementation and governance of mitigation. Chapter 13 explores national and sub-national policies and institutions, bringing together lessons of policies examined in the sectoral chapters, as well as insights from service and demand-side perspectives (Chapter 5), along with governance approaches and capacity-building, and the role and relationships of sub-national actors. Chapter 14 then considers the roles and status of international cooperation, including the UNFCCC agreements and international institutions, sectoral agreements and multiple forms of international partnerships, and the ethics and governance challenges of solar radiation modification. Chapter 15 explores investment and finance, including current trends, the investment needs for deep decarbonisation, and the complementary roles of public and private finance. This includes climate-related investment opportunities and risks (e.g., ‘stranded assets’), linkages between finance and investments in adaptation and mitigation; and the impact of COVID-19. A new chapter on innovation (Chapter 16) looks at technology development, accelerated deployment and global diffusion as systemic issues that hold potential for transformative changes, and the challenges of managing such changes at multiple levels including the role of international cooperation.

Finally, Chapter 17 considers accelerating the transition in the context of sustainable development, including practical pathways for joint responses to climate change and sustainable development challenges. This includes major regional perspectives, mitigation-adaptation interlinkages, and enabling conditions including the roles of technology, finance and cooperation for sustainable development.

Abrahamsen, R., L.R. Andersen, and O.J. Sending, 2019: Introduction: Making liberal internationalism great again?Int. J. Canada’s J. Glob. Policy Anal. , 74(1) , 5–14, doi:10.1177/0020702019827050.

Acemoglu, D., P. Aghion, L. Bursztyn, and D. Hemous, 2012: The environment and directed technical change. Am. Econ. Rev. , 102(1) , 131–166, doi:10.1257/aer.102.1.131.

Acemoglu, D., U. Akcigit, D. Hanley, and W. Kerr, 2016: Transition to Clean Technology. J. Polit. Econ. , 124(1) , 52–104, doi:10.1086/684511.

Ackerman, F., E.A. Stanton, and R. Bueno, 2010: Fat tails, exponents, extreme uncertainty: Simulating catastrophe in DICE. Ecol. Econ. , 69(8) , 1657–1665, doi:10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2010.03.013.

Adelman, S., 2015: Tropical forests and climate change: a critique of green governmentality. Int. J. Law Context , 11(2) , 195–212, doi:10.1017/s1744552315000075.

Adger, W.N., 2009: Social Capital, Collective Action, and Adaptation to Climate Change. Econ. Geogr. , 79(4) , 387–404, doi:10.1111/j.1944-8287. 2003.tb00220.x.

Adler, M. et al., 2017: Priority for the worse-off and the social cost of carbon. Nat. Clim. Change, 7(6) , 443–449, doi:10.1038/nclimate3298.

Afionis, S., M. Sakai, K. Scott, J. Barrett, and A. Gouldson, 2017: Consumption-based carbon accounting: does it have a future?Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change, 8(1) , e438, doi:10.1002/wcc.438.

Aghion, P., C. Antonin, and S. Bunel, 2021: The Power of Creative Destruction. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, and London, UK, 400 pp. doi.org/10.4159/9780674258686.

Akimoto, K., F. Sano, and T. Tomoda, 2018: GHG emission pathways until 2300 for the 1.5°C temperature rise target and the mitigation costs achieving the pathways. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change, 23(6) , 839–852, doi:10.1007/s11027-017-9762-z.

Alam, K. et al., 2013: Planning “Exceptionalism”? Political Economy of Climate Resilient Development in Bangladesh, in Climate Change Adaptation Actions in Bangladesh[Shaw, R., Mallick, F., and Islam, A. (eds)]. Springer, Tokyo, Japan, 387–417 pp. doi: 10.1007/978-4-431-54249-0_20.

Albrecht, F., and C.F. Parker, 2019: Healing the Ozone Layer: The Montreal Protocol and the Lessons and Limits of a Global Governance Success Story. In: Great Policy Successes[Hart, P. and Compton, M. (eds)], Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 304–322. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780198843719.003.0016.

Albrecht, T.R., A. Crootof, and C.A. Scott, 2018: The Water-Energy-Food Nexus: A systematic review of methods for nexus assessment. Environ. Res. Lett. , 13(4) , doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aaa9c6.

Aldy, J.E., 2015: Pricing climate risk mitigation. Nat. Clim. Change, 5(5) , 396–398, doi:10.1038/nclimate2540.

Alic, J.A. and D. Sarewitz, 2016: Rethinking innovation for decarbonizing energy systems. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. , 21, 212–221, doi:10.1016/j.erss.2016.08.005.

Allcott, H., 2011: Social norms and energy conservation. J. Public Econ. , 95 (9–10), 1082–1095, doi:10.1016/J.JPUBECO.2011.03.003.

Allcott, H., and S. Mullainathan, 2010: Behavior and Energy Policy. Science, 327 (5970), 1204–1205, doi:10.1126/science.1180775.

Allen, T. et al., 2020: Climate-Related Scenarios for Financial Stability Assessment: An Application to France. SSRN Electron. J. , doi:10.2139/ssrn.3653131.

Allwood, J.M., 2014: Squaring the Circular Economy: The Role of Recycling within a Hierarchy of Material Management Strategies. In: Handbook of Recycling[Worrell, E. and M.A. Reuter (eds.)]. Elsevier, pp. 445–477, doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-396459-5.00030-1.

Ameli, N., P. Drummond, A. Bisaro, M. Grubb, and H. Chenet, 2020: Climate finance and disclosure for institutional investors: why transparency is not enough. Clim. Change, 160(4) , 565–589, doi:10.1007/s10584-019-02542-2.

Ameli, N., S. Kothari, and M. Grubb, 2021: Misplaced expectations from climate disclosure initiatives. Nat. Clim. Change, 11(11), 917–924, doi:10.1038/s41558-021-01174-8.

Andrews-Speed, P. and C. Dalin, 2017: Elements of the water–energy–food nexus in China. In: Routledge Handbook of the Resource Nexus[Bleischwitz, R., H. Hoff, C. Spataru, E. Van der Voet, and S.D. VanDeveer (eds.)]. Routledge, Abingdon, UK, pp. 347–367, doi:10.4324/ 9781315560625-23.

Andrijevic, M., C.-F. Schleussner, M.J. Gidden, D.L. McCollum, and J. Rogelj, 2020: COVID-19 recovery funds dwarf clean energy investment needs. Science, 370(6514) , 298–300, doi:10.1126/science.abc9697.

Antal, M. and J.C.J.M. Van Den Bergh, 2016: Green growth and climate change: conceptual and empirical considerations. Clim. Policy, 16(2) , 165–177, doi:10.1080/14693062.2014.992003.

Anthoff, D. and R.S.J. Tol, 2010: On international equity weights and national decision making on climate change. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. , 60(1) , 14–20, doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2010.04.002.

Antimiani, A., V. Costantini, A. Markandya, E. Paglialunga, and G. Sforna, 2017: The Green Climate Fund as an effective compensatory mechanism in global climate negotiations. Environ. Sci. Policy, 77 (July), 49–68, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.015.

Arora-Jonsson, S., 2011: Virtue and vulnerability: Discourses on women, gender and climate change. Glob. Environ. Change, 21(2) , 744–751, doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2011.01.005.

Arrow, K. et al., 2013: Determining benefits and costs for future generations. Science, 341(6144) , 349–350, doi:10.1126/science.1235665.

Arrow, K.J., A. Sen, and K. Suzumura, 2011: Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare Volume 2. North-Holland, Oxford, UK,, 952 pp.

Arthur, B., 1989: Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. Econ. J. , 99, 116–131, doi: 10.2307/2234208.

Arthur, W.B., 1999: Complexity and the Economy. Science, 284(5411) , 107–109, doi:10.1126/science.284.5411.107.

Arto, I. and E. Dietzenbacher, 2014: Drivers of the growth in global greenhouse gas emissions. Environ. Sci. Technol. , 48(10) , 5388–5394, doi:10.1021/es5005347.

Artz, J. et al., 2018: Sustainable Conversion of Carbon Dioxide: An Integrated Review of Catalysis and Life Cycle Assessment. Chem. Rev. , 118(2) , 434–504, doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00435.

Asara, V., I. Otero, F. Demaria, and E. Corbera, 2015: Socially sustainable degrowth as a social–ecological transformation: repoliticizing sustainability. Sustain. Sci. , 10(3) , 375–384, doi:10.1007/s11625-015-0321-9.

Asheim, G.B. et al., 2019: The case for a supply-side climate treaty. Science, 365(6451) , 325–327, doi:10.1126/science.aax5011.

Auerbach, A.J. and Y. Gorodnichenko, 2012: Measuring the Output Responses to Fiscal Policy. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy, 4(2) , 1–27, doi:10.1257/pol.4.2.1.

Auffhammer, M., 2018: Quantifying Economic Damages from Climate Change. J. Econ. Perspect. , 32(4) , 33–52, doi:10.1257/JEP.32.4.33.

Austen-Smith, D., W. Dziuda, B. Harstad, and A. Loeper, 2019: Gridlock and inefficient policy instruments. Theor. Econ. , 14(4) , 1483–1534, doi:10.3982/TE3329.

Aven, T. and O. Renn, 2015: An evaluation of the treatment of risk and uncertainties in the IPCC reports on climate change. Risk Anal. , 35(4) , 701–712, doi:10.1111/risa.12298.

Avgerinou, M., P. Bertoldi, and L. Castellazzi, 2017: Trends in Data Centre Energy Consumption under the European Code of Conduct for Data Centre Energy Efficiency. Energies, 10(10) , 1470, doi:10.3390/en10101470.

Aykut, S.C., 2016: Taking a wider view on climate governance: moving beyond the ‘iceberg,’ the ‘elephant,’ and the ‘forest.’WIREs Clim. Change, 7(3) , 318–328, doi:10.1002/wcc.391.

Baarsch, F. et al., 2020: The impact of climate change on incomes and convergence in Africa. World Dev. , 126, 104699, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104699.

Bäckstrand, K. and E. Lövbrand, 2019: The Road to Paris: Contending Climate Governance Discourses in the Post-Copenhagen Era. J. Environ. Policy Plan. , 21(5) , 519–532, doi:10.1080/1523908X.2016.1150777.

Bäckstrand, K., J.W. Kuyper, B.-O. Linnér, and E. Lövbrand, 2017: Non-state actors in global climate governance: from Copenhagen to Paris and beyond. Env. Polit. , 26(4) , 561–579, doi:10.1080/09644016.2017.1327485.

Bain, C., 2017: The greening of self-interest: why is China standing firm on its climate commitments despite US regression?, MA thesis, University of British Columbiapp. 57.

Baker, L., 2015: Renewable energy in South Africa’s minerals-energy complex: a ‘low carbon’ transition?’Rev. Afr. Polit. Econ. , 42(144) , 245–261, doi:10.1080/03056244.2014.953471.

Balasubramanya, S. and D. Stifel, 2020: Viewpoint: Water, agriculture & poverty in an era of climate change: Why do we know so little?Food Policy, 93, 101905, doi:10.1016/J.FOODPOL.2020.101905.

Baldwin, E., Y. Cai, and K. Kuralbayeva, 2020: To build or not to build? Capital stocks and climate policy*. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. , 100, 102235, doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2019.05.001.

Bardi, U., S. Falsini, and I. Perissi, 2019: Toward a General Theory of Societal Collapse: A Biophysical Examination of Tainter’s Model of the Diminishing Returns of Complexity. Biophys. Econ. Resour. Qual. , 4(1) , 3, doi:10.1007/s41247-018-0049-0.

Barker, T. and D. Crawford-Brown, 2014: Decarbonising the world’s economy: Assessing the feasibility of policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Decarbonising World’s Econ. Assess. Feasibility Policies to Reduce Greenh. Gas Emiss. , 1–361, doi:10.1142/P955.

Barker, T., and D. Crawford-Brown, 2014: Decarbonising the World’s Economy. Imperial College Press, London, UK, pp. 1–361.

Barrett, S., 1994: Self-Enforcing International Environmental Agreements. Oxf. Econ. Pap. , 46(0) , 878–894.

Barrett, S., 2005: The theory of international environmental agreements. In: Handbook of Environmental Economics Volume 3[Mäler, K.-G. and J.R. Vincent, (eds.)]. Vol. 3 of, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 1457–1516.

Barrett, S., 2016: Coordination vs. voluntarism and enforcement in sustaining international environmental cooperation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. , 113(51) , 14515–14522, doi:10.1073/PNAS.1604989113.

Bataille, C. et al., 2016: The need for national deep decarbonization pathways for effective climate policy. Clim. Policy, 16(sup1) , S7–S26, doi:10.1080/14693062.2016.1173005.

Battaglini, M. and B. Harstad, 2016: Participation and Duration of Environmental Agreements. J. Polit. Econ. , 124(1) , 160–204, doi:10.1086/684478.

Battiston, S., A. Mandel, I. Monasterolo, F. Schütze, and G. Visentin, 2017: A climate stress-test of the financial system. Nat. Clim. Change, 7(4) , 283–288, doi:10.1038/nclimate3255.

Battiston, S., I. Monasterolo, K. Riahi, and B.J. van Ruijven, 2021: Accounting for finance is key for climate mitigation pathways. Science, 372(6545) , 918–920, doi:10.1126/science.abf3877.

Bauer, N. et al., 2013: CO2 emission mitigation and fossil fuel markets: Dynamic and international aspects of climate policies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 90.

Bauer, N. et al., 2020: Quantification of an efficiency-sovereignty trade-off in climate policy. Nature, 588(7837) , 261–266, doi:10.1038/S41586-020-2982-5.

Bazilian, M. et al., 2011: Considering the energy, water and food nexus: Towards an integrated modelling approach. Energy Policy, 39(12) , 7896–7906, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.09.039.

Beinhocker, E.D., 2007: The origin of wealth: evolution, complexity, and the radical remaking of economics. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, USA, 526 pp.

Belkhir, L. and A. Elmeligi, 2018: Assessing ICT global emissions footprint: Trends to 2040 & recommendations. J. Clean. Prod. , 177, 448–463, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.239.

Bénabou, R. and J. Tirole, 2011: Identity, morals, and taboos: Beliefs as assets. Q.J. Econ. , 126(2) , 805–855, doi:10.1093/qje/qjr002.

Bengtsson Sonesson, L. et al., 2019: Carbon Ruins: An exhibition of the fossil age. Climaginaries. https://www.climaginaries.org/carbonruins.

Berkhout, F. et al., 2010: Sustainability experiments in Asia: Innovations shaping alternative development pathways?Environ. Sci. Policy, 13(4) , 261–271, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2010.03.010.

Bernauer, T. and T. Böhmelt, 2013: National climate policies in international comparison: The Climate Change Cooperation Index. Environ. Sci. Policy, 25, 196–206, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2012.09.007.

Bernstein, S. and M. Hoffmann, 2018: The politics of decarbonization and the catalytic impact of subnational climate experiments. Policy Sciences, 51(2) , 189–211, doi:10.1007/s11077-018-9314-8.

Berry, A., and É. Laurent, 2019: Taxe carbone, le retour, à quelles conditions?, RAPPEL Paris, France, 38pp.

Bertram, C. et al., 2015: Carbon lock-in through capital stock inertia associated with weak near-term climate policies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 90(PA) , 62–72, doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.10.001.

Bickersteth, S. et al., 2017: Mainstreaming climate compatible development . Climate and Development Knowledge Network, London, UK, 302pp. https://cdkn.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Mainstreaming-climate-compatible-development -web-final.pdf .

Biermann, F., P. Pattberg, H. van Asselt, and F. Zelli, 2009: The Fragmentation of Global Governance Architectures: A Framework for Analysis. Glob. Environ. Polit. , 9(4) , 14–40, doi:10.1162/glep.2009.9.4.14.

Biermann, F., N. Kanie, and R.E. Kim, 2017: Global governance by goal-setting: the novel approach of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustainability, 26–27, 26–31, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.010.

Bina, O., 2013: The Green Economy and Sustainable Development: An Uneasy Balance?Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy, 31(6) , 1023–1047, doi:10.1068/c1310j.

Blanchard, O. and D. Leigh, 2013: Growth Forecast Errors and Fiscal Multipliers. IMF Work. Pap. , 13(1) , 1, doi:10.5089/9781475576443.001.

Bobeck, J., J. Peace, F. M. Ahmad, and R. Munson, 2019: Carbon Utilization - A Vital and Effective Pathway for Decarbonization. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Arlington, VA, 42pp. https://www.c2es.org/document/carbon-utilization-a-vital-and-effective-pathway-for-decarbonization/.

Bodansky, D., 2016: The Legal Character of the Paris Agreement. Rev. Eur. Comp. Int. Environ. Law, 25(2) , 142–150, doi:10.1111/reel.12154.

Bodansky, D., J. Brunnée, and L. Rajamani, 2017: International Climate Change Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford UK.

Boppart, T. and P. Krusell, 2020: Labor Supply in the Past, Present, and Future: A Balanced-Growth Perspective. J. Polit. Econ. , 128(1) , 118–157, doi:10.1086/704071.

Bos, K. and J. Gupta, 2019: Stranded assets and stranded resources: Implications for climate change mitigation and global sustainable development. Energy Res. Soc. Science, 56, 101215, doi:10.1016/j.erss.2019.05.025.

Bowman, M. and S. Minas, 2019: Resilience through interlinkage: the green climate fund and climate finance governance. Clim. Policy, 19(3) , 342–353, doi:10.1080/14693062.2018.1513358.

Boykoff, M.T., 2011: Who Speaks for the Climate?: Making Sense of Media Reporting on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 241pp.

Braito, M.T. et al., 2017: Human-nature relationships and linkages to environmental behaviour. Environ. Values, 26(3) , 365–389, doi:10.3197/096327117X14913285800706.

Breetz, H., M. Mildenberger, and L. Stokes, 2018: The political logics of clean energy transitions. Bus. Polit. , 20(4) , 492–522, doi:10.1017/bap.2018.14.

Brekke, K.A., S. Kverndokk, and K. Nyborg, 2003: An economic model of moral motivation. J. Public Econ. , 87(9–10) , 1967–1983, doi:10.1016/S0047-2727(01)00222-5.

Brockway, P.E., A. Owen, L.I. Brand-Correa, and L. Hardt, 2019: Estimation of global final-stage energy-return-on-investment for fossil fuels with comparison to renewable energy sources. Nat. Energy, 4 (7), 612–621.

Broome, J., 2012: Climate matters: ethics in a warming world. W.W. Norton & Co., New York, USA, 192pp.

Brouwer, F. et al., 2018: Energy modelling and the Nexus concept. Energy Strateg. Rev. , 19, 1–6, doi:10.1016/j.esr.2017.10.005.

Brulle, R.J., 2014: Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of US climate change counter-movement organizations. Clim. Change, 122 (4), 681–694, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7.

Brulle, R.J., 2019: Networks of Opposition: A Structural Analysis of US Climate Change Countermovement Coalitions 1989–2015. Sociol. Inq. , 91(3) , 603–624, doi:10.1111/soin.12333.

Brulle, R.J. and K.M. Norgaard, 2019: Avoiding Cultural Trauma: Climate Change and Social Inertia. Env. Polit. , 28(5) , 886–908, doi:10.1080/09644016.2018.1562138.

Brulle, R.J., M. Aronczyk, and J. Carmichael, 2020: Corporate promotion and climate change: an analysis of key variables affecting advertising spending by major oil corporations, 1986–2015. Clim. Change, 159(1) , 87–101, doi:10.1007/s10584-019-02582-8.

Bryck, K. and N. Ellis, 2016: An Engineering Approach to Sustainable Decision Making. Environ. Values, 25(6) , 639–662, doi:10.3197/096327116X14736981715580.

Buettner, A., 2020: ‘Imagine what we could do’– the school strikes for climate and reclaiming citizen empowerment. Continuum, 34(6) , 828–839, doi:10.1080/10304312.2020.1842123.

Buhr, B. et al., 2018: Climate Change and the Cost of Capital in Developing Countries, Imperial College Business School and SOAS University of London, London, UK, 38 pphttps://imperialcollegelondon.app.box.com/s/e8x6t16y9bajb85inazbk5mdrqtvxfzd.

Bulkeley, H. and H. Schroeder, 2012: Beyond state/non-state divides: Global cities and the governing of climate change. Eur. J. Int. Relations, 18(4) , 743–766, doi:10.1177/1354066111413308.

Bulkeley, H. et al., 2014: Transnational Climate Change Governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 212.

Bulow, J., C. Reinhart, K. Rogoff, and C. Trebesch, 2021: The debt pandemic: new steps are needed to improve sovereign debt workouts. IMF Financ. Dev. ,. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2020/09/debt-pandemic- reinhart-rogoff-bulow-trebesch.htm (Accessed March 12, 2021).

Callaghan, M.W., J.C. Minx, and P.M. Forster, 2020: A topography of climate change research. Nat. Clim. Change, 10(2) , 118–123, doi:10.1038/s41558-019-0684-5.

Campiglio, E. et al., 2018: Climate change challenges for central banks and financial regulators. Nat. Clim. Change, 8(6) , 462–468, doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0175-0.

Caney, S., 2016: The Struggle for Climate Justice in a Non-Ideal World. Midwest Stud. Philos. , 40(1) , 9–26, doi:10.1111/misp.12044.

Capasso, M., T. Hansen, J. Heiberg, A. Klitkou, and M. Steen, 2019: Green growth – A synthesis of scientific findings. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 146, 390–402, doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2019.06.013.

Carbone, J.C. and N. Rivers, 2017: The Impacts of Unilateral Climate Policy on Competitiveness: Evidence From Computable General Equilibrium Models. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy, 11(1) , 24–42, doi:10.1093/reep/rew025.

Carleton, T. et al., 2020: Valuing the Global Mortality Consequences of Climate Change Accounting for Adaptation Costs and Benefits. National Bureau of Economic Research,Cambridge, MA, USA, 49 pp.

Carley, S. and D.M. Konisky, 2020: The justice and equity implications of the clean energy transition. Nat. Energy, 5(8) , 569–577, doi:10.1038/s41560-020-0641-6.

Carlsson, B. and R. Stankiewicz, 1991: On the nature, function and composition of technological systems. J. Evol. Econ. , 1(2) , 93–118, doi:10.1007/BF01224915.

Casadio Tarabusi, E. and G. Guarini, 2013: An Unbalance Adjustment Method for Development Indicators. Soc. Indic. Res. , 112(1) , 19–45, doi:10.1007/s11205-012-0070-4.

Castree, N., 2017: Unfree Radicals: Geoscientists, the Anthropocene, and Left Politics. Antipode, 49, 52–74, doi:10.1111/anti.12187.

Ćetković, S. and A. Buzogány, 2016: Varieties of capitalism and clean energy transitions in the European Union: When renewable energy hits different economic logics. Clim. Policy, 16(5) , 642–657, doi:10.1080/14693062.2015.1135778.

Chan, S., C. Brandi, and S. Bauer, 2016: Aligning Transnational Climate Action with International Climate Governance: The Road from Paris. Rev. Eur. Comp. Int. Environ. Law, 25(2) , 238–247, doi:10.1111/reel.12168.

Chan, S., R. Falkner, M. Goldberg, and H. van Asselt, 2018: Effective and geographically balanced? An output-based assessment of non-state climate actions. Clim. Policy, 18(1) , 24–35, doi:10.1080/14693062.2016.1248343.

Chang, H.-J., 2014: Economics: The User’s Guide. 1st ed. Pelican, New Orleans, USA, 502 pp.

Chapman, D.A., B. Lickel, and E.M. Markowitz, 2017: Reassessing emotion in climate change communication. Nat. Clim. Change, 7(12) , 850–852, doi:10.1038/s41558-017-0021-9.

Chazdon, R., 2008: Beyond deforestation: restoring forests and ecosystem services on degraded lands. Science, 320(5882) , 1458–1460, doi: 10.1126/science.1155365.

Chen, K. et al., 2017: Impact of climate change on heat-related mortality in Jiangsu Province, China. Environ. Pollut. , 224, 317–325, doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2017.02.011.

Chenet, H., J. Ryan-Collins, and F. van Lerven, 2021: Finance, climate-change and radical uncertainty: Towards a precautionary approach to financial policy. Ecol. Econ. , 183, 106957, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.106957.

Cheon, A. and J. Urpelainen, 2018: Activism and the fossil fuel industry. 1st ed. Routledge, Abingdon, UK, 242 pp.

Cherp, A., V. Vinichenko, J. Jewell, E. Brutschin, and B. Sovacool, 2018: Integrating techno-economic, socio-technical and political perspectives on national energy transitions: A meta-theoretical framework. Energy Res. Soc. Science, 37, 175–190, doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.015.

Clapp, J., P. Newell, and Z.W. Brent, 2018: The global political economy of climate change, agriculture and food systems. J. Peasant Stud. , 45(1) , 80–88, doi:10.1080/03066150.2017.1381602.

Clémençon, R., 2016: The Two Sides of the Paris Climate Agreement: Dismal Failure or Historic Breakthrough?J. Environ. Dev. , 25(1) , 3–24, doi:10.1177/1070496516631362.

Clulow, Z., 2019: Democracy, electoral systems and emissions: explaining when and why democratization promotes mitigation. Clim. Policy, 19(2) , 244–257, doi:10.1080/14693062.2018.1497938.

Cohen, T. and C. Cavoli, 2019: Automated vehicles: exploring possible consequences of government (non)intervention for congestion and accessibility. Transp. Rev. , 39(1) , 129–151, doi:10.1080/01441647.2018.1524401.

Cole, D.H., 2015: Advantages of a polycentric approach to climate change policy. Nat. Clim. Change, 5(2) , 114–118, doi:10.1038/nclimate2490.

Conway, D. et al., 2015: Climate and southern Africa’s water–energy–food nexus. Nat. Clim. Change, 5(9) , 837–846, doi:10.1038/nclimate2735.

Costanza, R., L. Fioramonti, and I. Kubiszewski, 2016: The UN Sustainable Development Goals and the dynamics of well-being. Front. Ecol. Environ. , 14(2) , 59, doi:10.1002/fee.1231.

National Research Council, 2015a: Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA.

National Research Council, 2015b: Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA.

Cramton, P., D.J.C. MacKay, A. Ockenfels, and S. (eds) Stoft, 2017a: Global Carbon Pricing: the path to climate cooperation. [Cramton, P., D.J. MacKay, A. Ockenfels, and S. Stoft, (eds.)]. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 268pp.

Cramton, P., A. Ockenfels, and J. Tirole, 2017b: Policy Brief – Translating the Collective Climate Goal Into a Common Climate Commitment. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy, 11(1) , 165–171, doi:10.1093/reep/rew015.

Cronin, J. et al., 2021: Embedding justice in the 1.5°C transition: A transdisciplinary research agenda. Renew. Sustain. Energy Transit. , 1, 100001, doi:10.1016/j.rset.2021.100001.

Cui, L. and Y. Huang, 2018: Exploring the Schemes for Green Climate Fund Financing: International Lessons. World Dev. , 101, 173–187, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.08.009.

Cullen, J.M. and J.M. Allwood, 2010: The efficient use of energy: Tracing the global flow of energy from fuel to service. Energy Policy, 38(1) , 75–81, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.08.054.

D’Odorico, P. et al., 2018: The Global Food-Energy-Water Nexus. Rev. Geophys. , 56(3) , 456–531, doi:10.1029/2017RG000591.

Dagnachew, A.G., P.L. Lucas, A.F. Hof, and D.P. van Vuuren, 2018: Trade-offs and synergies between universal electricity access and climate change mitigation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Energy Policy, 114, 355–366, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2017.12.023.

Dale, G., M.V. Mathai, and J.A. Puppim de Oliveira, 2015a: Green growth: ideology, political economy and the alternatives. Zed Books, London, UK. 323 pp.

Daniel, K.D., R.B. Litterman, and G. Wagner, 2019: Declining CO2 price paths. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. , 116(42) , 20886–20891, doi:10.1073/pnas.1817444116.

Dasgupta, P., 2008: Discounting climate change. J. Risk Uncertain. , 37(2–3) , 141–169, doi:10.1007/s11166-008-9049-6.

Dasgupta, P. et al., 2015: How to measure sustainable progress. Science, 350(6262) , 748, doi:10.1126/science.350.6262.748.

David Tàbara, J., J. Jäger, D. Mangalagiu, and M. Grasso, 2019: Defining transformative climate science to address high-end climate change. Reg. Environ. Change, 19(3) , 807–818, doi:10.1007/s10113-018-1288-8.

de Melo, J. and M. Vijil, 2014: Barriers to Trade in Environmental Goods and Environmental Services: How Important are They? How Much Progress at Reducing Them?Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM)Milan, Italy, 59pp.

Death, C., 2014: The Green Economy in South Africa: Global Discourses and Local Politics. Politikon, 41(1) , 1–22, doi:10.1080/02589346.2014.885668.

Denis-Ryan, A., C. Bataille, and F. Jotzo, 2016: Managing carbon-intensive materials in a decarbonizing world without a global price on carbon. Clim. Policy, 16(sup1) , S110–S128, doi:10.1080/14693062.2016.1176008.

Di Gregorio, M. et al., 2019: Multi-level governance and power in climate change policy networks. Glob. Environ. Change, 54, 64–77, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.10.003.

Di Muzio, T., 2015: The 1% and The Rest of Us. Bloomsbury Academic, London, UK, 258 pp.

Dietz, S., 2011: High impact, low probability? An empirical analysis of risk in the economics of climate change. Clim. Change, 108(3) , 519–541, doi:10.1007/s10584-010-9993-4.

Dietz, S. and N. Stern, 2015: Endogenous Growth, Convexity of Damage and Climate Risk: How Nordhaus’ Framework Supports Deep Cuts in Carbon Emissions. Econ. J. , 125(583) , 574–620, doi:10.1111/ecoj.12188.

Dietz, S. and F. Venmans, 2019: Cumulative carbon emissions and economic policy: In search of general principles. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. , 96, 108–129, doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2019.04.003.

Diffenbaugh, N.S. and M. Burke, 2019: Global warming has increased global economic inequality. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. , 116(20) , 9808–9813, doi:10.1073/pnas.1816020116.

Dodds, T., 2019: Reporting with WhatsApp: Mobile Chat Applications’ Impact on Journalistic Practices. Digit. Journal. , 7(6) , 725–745, doi:10.1080/21670811.2019.1592693.

Dooley, K. et al., 2021: Ethical choices behind quantifications of fair contributions under the Paris Agreement. Nat. Clim. Change, 11(4) , 300–305, doi:10.1038/s41558-021-01015-8.

Dorsch, M.J. and C. Flachsland, 2017: A Polycentric Approach to Global Climate Governance. Glob. Environ. Polit. , 17(2) , 45–64, doi:10.1162/GLEP_a_400.

Doukas, H. and A. Nikas, 2020: Decision support models in climate policy. Eur. J. Oper. Res. , 280(1) , 1–24, doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2019.01.017.

Driscoll, D., 2021: Populism and Carbon Tax Justice: The Yellow Vest Movement in France. Soc. Probl. , spab036 doi:10.1093/socpro/spab036.

Drouet, L. et al., 2021: Net zero emission pathways reduce the physical and economic risks of climate change. Nat. Clim. Change, 11 (12), 1070–1076 doi:10.1038/s41558-021-01218-z.

Drupp, M.A., M.C. Freeman, B. Groom, and F. Nesje, 2018: Discounting disentangled. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy, 10(4) , 109–134, doi:10.1257/pol.20160240.

Dryzek, J., D. Downes, C. Hunold, D. Schlosberg, and H.K. Hernes, 2003: Green States and Social Movements. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 240pp.

Dubash, N., 2019: An Introduction to India’s Evolving Climate Change Debate: From Diplomatic Insulation to Policy Integration. In: India in a Warming World: Integrating Climate Change and Development [Dubash, N.K. (ed.)]. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 1–28.

Dubash, N.K., 2020: Revisiting climate ambition: The case for prioritizing current action over future intent. WIREs Clim. Change, 11(1) , doi:10.1002/wcc.622.

Dubash, N.K., 2021: Varieties of climate governance: the emergence and functioning of climate institutions. Env. Polit. , 30(sup1) , 1–25, doi:10.1080/09644016.2021.1979775.

Earley, R. and P. Newman, 2021: Transport in the Aftermath of COVID-19: Lessons Learned and Future Directions. J. Transp. Technol. , 11(02) , 109–127, doi:10.4236/jtts.2021.112007.

Egnell, R., 2010: The organised hypocrisy of international state-building. Conflict, Secur. Dev. , 10(4) , 465–491, doi:10.1080/14678802.2010.50052.

Ekholm, T., 2014: Hedging the climate sensitivity risks of a temperature target. Clim. Change, 127(2) , 153–167, doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1243-8.

Ekholm, T., 2018: Climatic Cost-benefit Analysis Under Uncertainty and Learning on Climate Sensitivity and Damages. Ecol. Econ. , 154, 99–106, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.07.024.

Emmerling, J. et al., 2019: The role of the discount rate for emission pathways and negative emissions. Environ. Res. Lett. , 14(10) , 104008, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab3cc9.

Engau, C., D.C. Sprengel, and V.H. Hoffmann, 2017: Fasten your seatbelts: European airline responses to climate change turbulence. In: Corporate Responses to Climate Change[Sullivan, R. (ed.)]. Routledge, Abingdon, UK, pp. 279–300.

EPIC, 2019: Is the Public Willing to Pay to Help Fix Climate Change?Chicago, MA, USA, 12 pp.

EPT, 2020: Track funds for energy in recovery packages. Energy Policy Tracker,. https://www.energypolicytracker.org/ (Accessed June 1, 2020).

Ertugrul, H.M., M. Cetin, F. Seker, and E. Dogan, 2016: The impact of trade openness on global carbon dioxide emissions: Evidence from the top ten emitters among developing countries. Ecol. Indic. , 67, 543–555, doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.03.027.

Escobar, A., 2015: Degrowth, postdevelopment, and transitions: a preliminary conversation. Sustainability Science, 10(3) , 451–462, doi:10.1007/s11625-015-0297-5.

Eshel, G., P. Stainier, A. Shepon, and A. Swaminathan, 2019: Environmentally Optimal, Nutritionally Sound, Protein and Energy Conserving Plant Based Alternatives to US Meat. Sci. Rep. , 9(1) , doi:10.1038/s41598-019-46590-1.

Etchart, L., 2017: The role of indigenous peoples in combating climate change. Palgrave Commun. , 3(1) , 17085, doi:10.1057/palcomms.2017.85.

Evans, D., A. McMeekin, and D. Southerton, 2012: Sustainable Consumption, Behaviour Change Policies and Theories of Practice. Collegium, 12, 113–129.

Evans, G. and L. Phelan, 2016: Transition to a post-carbon society: Linking environmental justice and just transition discourses. Energy Policy, 99, 329–339, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2016.05.003.

Evans, S., and J. Gabbattiss, 2019: Article 6 Could Make or Break the Paris Agreement to Limit Climate Change. Carbon Br. ,. https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-q-and-a-how-article-6-carbon-markets-could-make-or-break-the-paris-agreement (Accessed November 29, 2019).

Evensen, D.T., 2015: Policy Decisions on Shale Gas Development (‘Fracking’): The Insufficiency of Science and Necessity of Moral Thought. Environ. Values, 24(4) , 511–534, doi:10.3197/096327115X14345368709989.

Fajardy, M., S. Chiquier, and N. Mac Dowell, 2018: Investigating the BECCS resource nexus: delivering sustainable negative emissions. Energy Environ. Science, 11(12) , 3408–3430, doi:10.1039/C8EE01676C.

Falkner, R., 2016: The Paris Agreement and the new logic of international climate politics. Int. Aff. , 92(5) , 1107–1125, doi:10.1111/1468-2346.12708.

Fankhauser, S. et al., 2013: Who will win the green race? In search of environmental competitiveness and innovation. Glob. Environ. Change, 23(5) , 902–913, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.007.

Fankhauser, S. and T.K.J. McDermott, 2016: Climate-resilient development: an introduction. In: The Economics of Climate-Resilient Development [Fankhauser, S. and T.K.J. McDermott (eds.)]. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, pp 1–12.

Farmer, J.D., C. Hepburn, P. Mealy, and A. Teytelboym, 2015: A Third Wave in the Economics of Climate Change. Environ. Resour. Econ. , 62(2) , 329–357, doi:10.1007/s10640-015-9965-2.

Farmer, J.D. et al., 2019: Sensitive intervention points in the post-carbon transition. Science, 364(6436) , 132–134, doi:10.1126/science.aaw7287.

Farooquee, A.A. and G. Shrimali, 2016: Making renewable energy competitive in India: Reducing financing costs via a government-sponsored hedging facility. Energy Policy, 95, 518–528, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2016.02.005.

Fatemi, M.N., S.A. Okyere, S.K. Diko, and M. Kita, 2020: Multi-Level Climate Governance in Bangladesh via Climate Change Mainstreaming: Lessons for Local Climate Action in Dhaka City. Urban Science, 4(2) , 24, doi:10.3390/urbansci4020024.

Federico, G. and A. Tena-Junguito, 2017: A tale of two globalizations: gains from trade and openness 1800–2010. Rev. World Econ. , 153(3) , 601–626, doi:10.1007/s10290-017-0279-z.

Feola, G., 2015: Societal transformation in response to global environmental change: A review of emerging concepts. Ambio, 44(5) , 376–390, doi:10.1007/s13280-014-0582-z.

Ferguson, D.B., J. Rice, and C.A. Woodhouse, 2014: Linking Environmental Research and Practice: Lessons From The Integration of Climate Science and Water Management in the Western United States, Climate Assessment for the Southwest, Tucson AZ, 21pp. https://climas.arizona.edu/publication/report/linking-environmental-research-and-practice.

Fink, L., 2020: A Fundamental Reshaping of Finance. BlackRock Letter to CEOs,. https://www.blackrock.com/us/individual/larry-fink-ceo-letter (Accessed August 3, 2021).

Finus, M., and D.T.G. Rübbelke, 2008: Coalition Formation and the Ancillary Benefits of Climate Policy. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Milan, Italy, 34 pp, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1259699.

Fisher, D.R. and P. Leifeld, 2019: The polycentricity of climate policy blockage. Clim. Change, 155(4) , 469–487, doi:10.1007/s10584-019-02481-y.

Fisher, D.R. et al., 2019: The science of contemporary street protest: New efforts in the United States. Sci. Adv. , 5(10) , 15pp, doi:10.1126/sciadv.aaw5461.

Fitzgerald, L.M., I. Braunger, and H. Brauers, 2019: Destabilisation of Sustainable Energy Transformations: Analysing Natural Gas Lock-in in the Case of Germany. STEPS Working Paper, no. 106, Brighton, UK, pp 34.

Flexer, V., C.F. Baspineiro, and C.I. Galli, 2018: Lithium recovery from brines: A vital raw material for green energies with a potential environmental impact in its mining and processing. Sci. Total Environ. , 639, 1188–1204, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.223.

Florin, M.-V., P. Rouse, A.-M. Hubert, M. Honegger, and J. Reynolds, 2020: lnternational governance issues on climate engineering Information for policymakers. EPFL International Risk Governance Center, Lausanne, Switzerland, pp 152. https://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/277726.

Folke, C. et al., 2010: Resilience Thinking: Integrating Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability. Ecol. Soc. , 15(4) , 20.

Forster, P.M. et al., 2020: Current and future global climate impacts resulting from COVID-19. Nat. Clim. Change, 10(10) , 913–919, doi:10.1038/s41558-020-0883-0.

Fotis, P. and M. Polemis, 2018: Sustainable development, environmental policy and renewable energy use: A dynamic panel data approach. Sustainable Dev. , 26(6) , 726–740, doi:10.1002/sd.1742.

Frame, D.J. et al., 2019: Emissions and emergence: A new index comparing relative contributions to climate change with relative climatic consequences. Environ. Res. Lett. , 14(8) , 84009, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab27fc.

Francis, 2015: Laudato Si’ of the Holy Father Francis on Care for Our Common Home. Vatican Press, Rome, Italy, 184 pp.

Freeman, C., and C.L.B.-F. Perez, 1988: Structural crises of adjustment: business cycles. In: Technical Change and Economic Theory[Dosi, G., C. Freeman, R. Nelson, G. Silverberg, and L. Soete (eds.)]. Pinter Publishers, London, UK, pp. 38–66.

Freeman, C., and F. Louçã, 2002: As Time Goes By. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 426 pp.

Freeman, G.M., T.E. Drennen, and A.D. White, 2017: Can parked cars and carbon taxes create a profit? The economics of vehicle-to-grid energy storage for peak reduction. Energy Policy, 106, 183–190, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.052.

Fresco, L., 2015: Hamburgers in Paradise: The Stories behind the Food We Eat . Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA, 560 pp.

Fuhr, H., T. Hickmann, and K. Kern, 2018: The role of cities in multi-level climate governance: local climate policies and the 1.5°C target. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustainability, 30, 1–6, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.10.006.

Fuhrman, J. et al., 2020: Food–energy–water implications of negative emissions technologies in a +1.5 °C future. Nat. Clim. Change, 10(10) , 920–927, doi:10.1038/s41558-020-0876-z.

Fujimori, S. et al., 2016: Will international emissions trading help achieve the objectives of the Paris Agreement?Environ. Res. Lett. , 11(10) , doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/104001.

Fuso Nerini, F. et al., 2018: Mapping synergies and trade-offs between energy and the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Energy, 3(1) , 10–15, doi:10.1038/s41560-017-0036-5.

Fuss, S. et al., 2018: Negative emissions – Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. Environ. Res. Lett. , 13(6) , 063002, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/AABF9F.

Gajevic Sayegh, A., 2017: Climate justice after Paris: a normative framework. J. Glob. Ethics, 13(3) , 344–365, doi:10.1080/17449626.2018.1425217.

Gampfer, R., 2014: Do individuals care about fairness in burden sharing for climate change mitigation? Evidence from a lab experiment. Clim. Change, 124(1–2) , 65–77, doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1091-6.

Gardiner, S.M., 2006: A perfect moral storm: Climate change, intergenerational ethics and the problem of moral corruption. Environ. Values, 15(3) , 397–413, doi:10.3197/096327106778226293.

Gardiner, S.M., 2011: A Perfect Moral Storm: The Ethical Tragedy of Climate Change. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 512 pp.

Garrett, T.J., M. Grasselli, and S. Keen, 2020: Past world economic production constrains current energy demands: Persistent scaling with implications for economic growth and climate change mitigation. PLoS One, 15(8) , e0237672, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0237672.

Gawel, E. and C. Kuhlicke, 2017: Efficiency–Equity–Trade–Off as a Challenge for Shaping Urban Transformations. In: Urban Transformations[Kabisch, S. et al. (eds).]. Springer, Cambridge, UK pp. 45–60.

GCF, 2020: Green Climate Fund Website. Green Climate Fund. https://www.greenclimate.fund/about (Accessed October 1, 2020).

Geden, O., 2016: The Paris Agreement and the inherent inconsistency of climate policymaking. WIREs Clim. Change, 7(6) , 790–797, doi:10.1002/wcc.427.

Geels, B.F.W., B. Sovacool, T. Schwanen, and S. Sorrell, 2017: Accelerating innovation is as important as climate policy. Science, 357(6357) , 1242–1244.

Geels, F. and R. Raven, 2006: Non-linearity and Expectations in Niche-Development Trajectories: Ups and Downs in Dutch Biogas Development (1973–2003). Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. , 18(3–4) , 375–392, doi:10.1080/09537320600777143.

Geels, F.W., 2002: Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res. Policy, 31(8–9) , 1257–1274, doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8.

Geels, F.W., 2010: Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Res. Policy, 39(4) , 495–510, doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.022.

Geels, F.W., 2014: Regime Resistance against Low-Carbon Transitions: Introducing Politics and Power into the Multi-Level Perspective. Theory, Cult. Soc. , 31(5) , 21–40, doi:10.1177/0263276414531627.

Geels, F.W., F. Berkhout, and D.P. van Vuuren, 2016: Bridging analytical approaches for low-carbon transitions. Nat. Clim. Change, 6(6) , 576–583, doi:10.1038/nclimate2980.

Georgeson, L., M. Maslin, and M. Poessinouw, 2017: The global green economy: a review of concepts, definitions, measurement methodologies and their interactions. Geo Geogr. Environ. , 4(1) , e00036, doi:10.1002/geo2.36.

GESAMP, 2019: High Level Review of a Wide Range of Proposed Marine Geoengineering Techniques[Boyd, P.W. and C.M.G. Vivian (eds.)]. International Maritime Organisation, London, UK, pp 145.

Gheorghe H., P. and F.C. Ciurlau, 2016: Can environmental sustainability be attained by incorporating nature within the capitalist economy?Econ. Manag. Financ. Mark. , 11(4).

Gidden, M.J. et al., 2019: Global emissions pathways under different socioeconomic scenarios for use in CMIP6: a dataset of harmonized emissions trajectories through the end of the century. Geosci. Model Dev. , 12(4) , 1443–1475, doi:10.5194/gmd-12-1443-2019.

Gilabert, P. and H. Lawford-Smith, 2012: Political Feasibility: A Conceptual Exploration. Polit. Stud. , 60(4) , 809–825, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248. 2011.00936.x.

Gillan, J.M., 2017: Dynamic Pricing, Attention, and Automation: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Electricity Consumption. Berkeley, CA, USA, 57pp.

Gillingham, K. and J.H. Stock, 2018: The Cost of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. J. Econ. Perspect. , 32(4) , 53–72, doi:10.1257/jep.32.4.53.

Glanemann, N., S.N. Willner, and A. Levermann, 2020: Paris Climate Agreement passes the cost-benefit test. Nat. Commun. , 11(1) , 110, doi:10.1038/s41467-019-13961-1.

Goddard, G. and M.A. Farrelly, 2018: Just transition management: Balancing just outcomes with just processes in Australian renewable energy transitions. Appl. Energy, 225, 110–123, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.05.025.

Goldthau, A. and N. Sitter, 2015: A Liberal Actor in a Realist World. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 180pp.

Gollier, C., 2021: The cost-efficiency carbon pricing puzzle. CEPR Discuss. Pap. No. DP15919, pp. 1–33.

Golosov, M., J. Hassler, P. Krusell, and A. Tsyvinski, 2014: Optimal Taxes on Fossil Fuel in General Equilibrium. Econometrica, 82(1) , 41–88, doi:10.3982/ECTA10217.

Gomez-Echeverri, L., 2018a: Climate and development: enhancing impact through stronger linkages in the implementation of the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. , 376(2119) , doi:10.1098/rsta.2016.0444.

Gomez-Echeverri, L., 2018b: Climate and development: enhancing impact through stronger linkages in the implementation of the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. , 376(2119) , 20160444, doi:10.1098/rsta.2016.0444.

Gonella, F. et al., 2019: Is technology optimism justified? A discussion towards a comprehensive narrative. J. Clean. Prod. , 223, 456–465, doi:10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2019.03.126.

Gordon, D.J., 2018: Global urban climate governance in three and a half parts: Experimentation, coordination, integration (and contestation). WIREs Clim. Change, 9(6) , e546, doi:10.1002/wcc.546.

Gough, I., 2017: Recomposing consumption: defining necessities for sustainable and equitable well-being. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. , 375(2095) , 20160379, doi:10.1098/rsta.2016.0379.

Gray, P. and T. Irwin, 2003: Exchange Rate Risk Allocating Exchange Rate Risk in Private Infrastructure Projects. Note No. 266. Washington, DC, USA: The World Bank, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/11286.

Green, F., 2018: Anti-fossil fuel norms. Clim. Change, 150(1) , 103–116, doi:10.1007/s10584-017-2134-6.

Green, F. and A. Gambhir, 2020: Transitional assistance policies for just, equitable and smooth low-carbon transitions: who, what and how?Clim. Policy, 20(8) , 902–921, doi:10.1080/14693062.2019.1657379.

Grin, J., J. Rotmans, and J. Schot, 2010: Transitions to Sustainable Development: New Directions in the Study of Long Term Transformative Change. Routledge, Abingdon, UK, 419pp.

Groom, B. and C. Hepburn, 2017: Looking back at social discounting policy: The influence of papers, presentations, political preconditions, and personalities. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy, 11(2) , 336–356, doi:10.1093/ reep/rex015.

Grubb, M., J.-C. Hourcade, and K. Neuhoff, 2014: Planetary Economics: Energy, climate change and the three domains of sustainable development . 1st ed. Routledge, Abingdon, UK, 520 pp.

Grubb, M., J.-C. Hourcade, and K. Neuhoff, 2015: The Three Domains structure of energy-climate transitions. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 98, 290–302, doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2015.05.009.

Grubb, M. et al., 2021a: Induced innovation in energy technologies and systems: A review of evidence and potential implications for CO2 mitigation. Environ. Res. Lett. , 16(4) , 43007, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/abde07.

Grubb, M., C. Wieners, and P. Yang, 2021b: Modelling Myths: on DICE and dynamic realism in integrated assessment models of climate change mitigation. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change, 12(3) , doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.698.

Gudka, S., N. Armstrong, and P. Newman, 2020: Cutting diesel exhaust could lessen Covid spread in cities,. Sci. Am. ,. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cutting-diesel-exhaust-could-lessen-covid-spread-in-cities/ (Accessed January 1, 2021).

Guilbeault, D., J. Becker, and D. Centola, 2018: Social learning and partisan bias in the interpretation of climate trends. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. , 115(39) , 9714–9719, doi:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1722664115.

Güney, T., 2017: Governance and sustainable development: How effective is governance?J. Int. Trade Econ. Dev. , 26(3) , 316–335, doi:10.1080/09638199.2016.1249391.

Gunster, S., 2017: This changes everything: capitalism vs the climate. Environ. Commun. , 11(1) , 136–138, doi:10.1080/17524032.2016.1196534.

Gupta, J., 2016: The Paris Climate Change Agreement: China and India. Clim. Law, 6(1–2) , 171–181, doi:10.1163/18786561-00601012.

Gupta, S.K., and U.S. Racherla, 2018: Interdependence among dimensions of sustainability: Evidence from the Indian leather industry. Manag. Environ. Qual. , 29(3) , 406–415, doi:10.1108/MEQ-06-2017-0051.

Guzman, M., J.A. Ocampo, and J.E. Stiglitz, 2018: Real exchange rate policies for economic development. World Dev. , 110, 51–62, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.05.017.

Haberl, H. et al., 2019: Contributions of sociometabolic research to sustainability science. Nat. Sustainability, 2(3) , 173–184, doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0225-2.

Haberl, H. et al., 2020: A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part II: synthesizing the insights. Environ. Res. Lett. , 15(6) , 065003, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab842a.

Hackmann, B., 2016: Regime Learning in Global Environmental Governance. Environ. Values, 25(6) , 663–686, doi:10.3197/096327116X14736981715625.

Hagedorn, G. et al., 2019: Concerns of young protesters are justified. Science, 364(6436) , 139–140, doi:10.1126/science.aax3807.

Hall, S., T.J. Foxon, and R. Bolton, 2017: Investing in low-carbon transitions: energy finance as an adaptive market. Clim. Policy, 17(3) , 280–298, doi:10.1080/14693062.2015.1094731.

Hamilton, L.C., 2011: Education, politics and opinions about climate change evidence for interaction effects. Clim. Change, 104(2) , 231–242, doi:10.1007/s10584-010-9957-8.

Hannis, M., 2016: Freedom and environment: Autonomy, human flourishing and the political philosophy of sustainability. Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, UK, 74 pp.

Hänsel, M.C. et al., 2020: Climate economics support for the UN climate targets. Nat. Clim. Change, 10(8) , 781–789, doi:10.1038/s41558-020-0833-x.

Hao, L.-N., M. Umar, Z. Khan, and W. Ali, 2021: Green growth and low carbon emission in G7 countries: How critical the network of environmental taxes, renewable energy and human capital is?Sci. Total Environ. , 752, 141853, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141853.

Hargreaves, S.M., A. Raposo, A. Saraiva, and R.P. Zandonadi, 2021: Vegetarian Diet: An Overview through the Perspective of Quality of Life Domains. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 18(8) , 4067, doi:10.3390/ijerph18084067.

Harrison, K., 2018: The Challenge of Transition in Liberal Market Economies: The United States and Canada. In: National Pathways to Low Carbon Emission Economies[Hübner, K. (ed.)]. Routledge, Abingdon, UK, pp 45–66.

Harstad, B., 2007: Harmonization and Side Payments in Political Cooperation. Am. Econ. Rev. , 97(3) , 871–889, doi:10.1257/AER.97.3.871.

Hartzell-Nichols, L., 2014: The Price of Precaution and the Ethics of Risk. Ethics, Policy & Environment , 17(1) , 116–118, doi:10.1080/21550085.2014.885183.

Hasegawa, T. et al., 2018: Risk of increased food insecurity under stringent global climate change mitigation policy. Nat. Clim. Change, 8(8) , 699–703, doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0230-x.

Havlik, P. et al., 2014: Climate change mitigation through livestock system transitions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. , 111(10) , 3709–3714, doi:10.1073/pnas.1308044111.

Healy, N., and J. Barry, 2017: Politicizing energy justice and energy system transitions: Fossil fuel divestment and a ‘just transition.’Energy Policy, 108, 451–459, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2017.06.014.

Heffron, R.J., and D. McCauley, 2018: What is the ‘Just Transition’?Geoforum, 88, 74–77, doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.11.016.

Heijdra, B.J., J.P. Kooiman, and J.E. Ligthart, 2006: Environmental quality, the macroeconomy, and intergenerational distribution. Resour. Energy Econ. , 28(1) , 74–104, doi:10.1016/j.reseneeco.2005.05.001.

Heinrichs, H., P. Jochem, and W. Fichtner, 2014: Including road transport in the EU ETS (European Emissions Trading System): A model-based analysis of the German electricity and transport sector. Energy, 69, 708–720, doi:10.1016/j.energy.2014.03.061.

Held, H., 2019: Cost Risk Analysis: Dynamically Consistent Decision-Making under Climate Targets. Environ. Resour. Econ. , 72(1) , 247–261, doi:10.1007/s10640-018-0288-y.

Henly-Shepard, S., Z. Zommers, E. Levine, and D. Abrahams, 2018: Climate-Resilient Development in Fragile Contexts. In: Resilience: The science of adaptation to climate change[Zommers, Z. and K. Alverson (eds.)]. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 279–290.

Hepburn, C., B. O’Callaghan, N. Stern, J. Stiglitz, and D. Zenghelis, 2020: Will COVID-19 fiscal recovery packages accelerate or retard progress on climate change?Oxford Rev. Econ. Policy, 36(20) , doi:10.1093/oxrep/graa015.

Herrick, C.N., 2018: Self-identity and sense of place: Some thoughts regarding climate change adaptation policy formulation. Environ. Values, 27(1) , 81–102, doi:10.3197/096327118X15144698637531.

Heyward, J.C. and D. Roser, 2016: Climate Justice in a Non-Ideal World. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 323 pp.

Hickel, J. and G. Kallis, 2020: Is Green Growth Possible?New Polit. Econ. , 25(4) , 469–486, doi:10.1080/13563467.2019.1598964.

Hidalgo, C.A. and R. Hausmann, 2009: The building blocks of economic complexity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. , 106(26) , 10570–10575.

Hilaire, J. et al., 2019: Negative emissions and international climate goals – learning from and about mitigation scenarios. Clim. Change, 157(2) , 189–219, doi:10.1007/s10584-019-02516-4.

Hildén, M., A. Jordan, and D. Huitema, 2017: Special issue on experimentation for climate change solutions editorial: The search for climate change and sustainability solutions – The promise and the pitfalls of experimentation. J. Clean. Prod. , 169, 1–7, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.019.

Himes-Cornell, A., L. Pendleton, and P. Atiyah, 2018: Valuing ecosystem services from blue forests: A systematic review of the valuation of salt marshes, sea grass beds and mangrove forests. Ecosyst. Serv. , 30, 36–48, doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.01.006.

Hochstetler, K., 2020: Political Economies of Energy Transition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 278pp.

Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al., 2019: The human imperative of stabilizing global climate change at 1.5°C. Science, 365(6459) , doi:10.1126/science.aaw6974.

Hoeing, A. et al., 2015: How nature is used and valued by villagers in two villages in Uut Murung. J. Indones. Nat. Hist. , 3(1) , 8–18.

Hoel, M.O., S.A.C. Kittelsen, and S. Kverndokk, 2019: Correcting the Climate Externality: Pareto Improvements Across Generations and Regions. Environ. Resour. Econ. , 74(1) , 449–472, doi:10.1007/s10640-019-00325-y.

Hof, A.F. et al., 2017: Global and regional abatement costs of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and of enhanced action to levels well below 2°C and 1.5°C. Environ. Sci. Policy, 71, 30–40, doi:10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2017.02.008.

Hof, A.F., D.P. van Vuuren, F. Berkhout, and F.W. Geels, 2020: Understanding transition pathways by bridging modelling, transition and practice-based studies: Editorial introduction to the special issue. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 151, 119665, doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2019.05.023.

Hoffmann, M.J., 2011: Climate Governance at the Crossroads. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 240pp.

Holzer, K., 2014: Carbon-related Border Adjustment and WTO Law. 1st ed. World Trade Institute, Bern, Switzerland, 352 pp.

Homma, T., G. K, J. Oda, and K. Akimoto, 2019: Analysis of International Competitiveness under the Current Climate and Energy Policies and the Nationally Determined Contributions. J. Japan Soc. EnergyResour. , 41(5).

Hourcade, J.-C., D. Dasgupta, and F. Ghersi, 2021a: Accelerating the speed and scale of climate finance in the post-pandemic context. Clim. Policy, 21 (10), 1383–1397, doi:10.1080/14693062.2021.1977599.

Hourcade, J.C. et al., 2021b: Scaling up climate finance in the context of Covid-19. Green Climate Fund, London, UK, 141pp.

Howarth, C. et al., 2020: Building a Social Mandate for Climate Action: Lessons from COVID-19. Environ. Resour. Econ. , 76(4) , 1107–1115, doi:10.1007/s10640-020-00446-9.

Howell, R. and S. Allen, 2017: People and Planet: Values, Motivations and Formative Influences of Individuals Acting to Mitigate Climate Change. Environ. Values, 26(2) , 131–155, doi:10.3197/096327117X14847335385436.

Hsu, A., O. Widerberg, M. Roelfsema, Lütkehermöller K, and F. Bakhtiari, 2018: Bridging the emissions gap – The role of non-state and subnational actors. Pre-release version of a chapter of the forthcoming UN Environment Emissions Gap Report . Nairobi, Kenya, 27pp. http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/htmain. (Accessed August 19, 2021).

Huber, B.R., 2012: How Did RGGI Do It? Political Economy and Emissions Auctions. Ecology Law Quarterly, 59, doi:10.2139/ssrn.2018329.

Hufty, M., 2012: Investigating Policy Processes: The Governance Analytical Framework (GAF). Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (IHEID), Geneva, Switzerland, 22pp. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2019005 (Accessed September 15, 2020).

IATA, 2020: Air Cargo Market Analysis: Robust end to 2020 for air cargo. International Air Transport Association, Montreal, Canada, 4 pp.https://www.iata.org/en/iata-repository/publications/economic-reports/air-freight-monthly-analysis---december-2020/ (Accessed January 20, 2021).

IAWG, 2016: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA. https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climatechange/social-cost-carbon_.html (Accessed January 10, 2021).

Ibikunle, G. and C. Okereke, 2014: Governing carbon through the European Union Emissions Trading System: Opportunities, pitfalls and future prospects. In: Carbon Governance, Climate Change and Business Transformation[Bumpus, A., J. Tansey, B. Henriquez, and C. Okereke (eds.)]. Routledge, London, UK, pp. 143–157.

IEA, 2019a: Global Energy & CO2Status Report The latest trends in energy and emissions in 2018. Paris, France. 29pphttps://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/23f9eb39-7493-4722-aced-61433cbffe10/Global_Energy_and_CO2_Status_Report_2018.pdf (Accessed April 15, 2021).

IEA, 2019b: World Energy Outlook 2019. Paris, France. 810pphttps://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2019 (Accessed April 15, 2021).

IEA, 2020a: World Energy Outlook 2020. Paris, France, 464pphttps://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2020 (Accessed April 15, 2021).

IEA, 2020b: Sustainable recovery: World Energy Outlook Special Report . Paris, France, pp 174. https://www.iea.org/reports/sustainable-recovery (Accessed April 15, 2021).

IEA, 2021: Global Energy Review 2021. Paris, France 34pphttps://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2021 (Accessed May 15, 2021).

IFEES, 2015: Islamic Declaration on Global Climate Change. Istanbul, Turkey, 8pp. https://www.ifees.org.uk/about/islamic-declaration-on-global-climate-change/ (Accessed September 20, 2021).

IISD, 2015: UNFCCC’s NAZCA Portal Features Over 500 City Actions. SGDKnowl. Hub,. http://sdg.iisd.org/news/unfcccs-nazca-portal-features-over-500-city-actions/ (Accessed January 22, 2022).

IMF, 2020: World Economic Outlook – A Long and Difficult Ascent . Washington, DC, USA, 204pp, https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2020/09/30/world-economic-outlook-october-2020 (Accessed April 16, 2021).

IMF, 2021: Gross debt position % of GDP. IMF Datamapper. https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/G_XWDG_G01_GDP_PT@FM/ADVEC/FM_EMG/FM_LIDC (Accessed June 13, 2021).

IPBES, 2019: The global assessment report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services[Díaz, S. et al. (eds.)]. IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 1148 pp.

IPCC, 1995: Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change[Bruce, J., H. Lee, and E. Haites (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, 1076pp.

IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change: Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change[Metz, B., O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 863pp.

IPCC, 2011a: IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation[O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, P. Matschoss, S. Kadner, T. Zwickel, P. Eickemeier, G. Hansen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 1088 pp.

IPCC, 2011b: Summary for Policymakers. In: IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation[O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, P. Matschoss, S. Kadner, T. Zwickel, P. Eickemeier, G. Hansen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 3–27.

IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change[Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp.

IPCC, 2014a: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change[Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K., T.Z. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, J.C., and Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 151 pp.

IPCC, 2014b: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change[Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K., T.Z. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, J.C., and Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 1–30.

IPCC, 2018a: Summary for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty[Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.

IPCC, 2018b: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty[Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.

IPCC, 2019a: Summary for Policymakers. In: An IPCC Special Report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems[P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.- O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, J. Malley (ed.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA. 43 pp.

IPCC, 2019b: IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate[H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Nicolai, A. Okem, J. Petzold, B. Rama, N.M. Weyer (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.

IPCC, 2019c: Climate Change and Land: an IPCC Special Report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems[P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, J. Malley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.

IRENA, 2020a: Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2019. Masdar City, UAE, 144pphttps://www.irena.org/publications/2020/Jun/Renewable-Power-Costs-in-2019 (Accessed September 15, 2021).

IRENA, 2020b: Renewable Electricity Capacity and Generation Statistics 2020. Masdar City, UAE, https://www.irena.org/publications/2020/Jul/Renewable-energy-statistics-2020 (Accssed September 15 2021).

Islam, M., K. Kanemoto, and S. Managi, 2016: Impact of Trade Openness and Sector Trade on Embodied Greenhouse Gases Emissions and Air Pollutants. J. Ind. Ecol. , 20(3) , 494–505, doi:10.1111/jiec.12455.

Ismer, R., M. Haussner, K. Neuhoff, and W.W. Acworth, 2016: Inclusion of Consumption into Emissions Trading Systems: Legal Design and Practical Administration. SSRN Electron. J. , doi:10.2139/ssrn.2784169.

IWG, 2021: Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive Order 13990. Washington, DC, USA, 48pp. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCost ofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf (Accessed September 2021).

Iyer, G.C. et al., 2015: Improved representation of investment decisions in assessments of CO2 mitigation. Nat. Clim. Change, 5(5) , 436–440, doi:10.1038/nclimate2553.

Jackson, T. and P.A. Victor, 2019: Unraveling the claims for (and against) green growth. Science, 366(6468) , 950–951, doi:10.1126/science.aay0749.

Jaeger, J., M.I. Westphal, and C. Park, 2020: Lessons Learned On Green Stimulus: Case studies from the global financial crisis, World Resources Institute, Washington DC, USA. 32 pp, https://www.wri.org/research/lessons-learned-green-stimulus-case-studies-global-financial-crisis (Accessesd April 15, 2021).

Jaffe, A.B., R.G. Newell, and R.N. Stavins, 2005: A tale of two market failures: Technology and environmental policy. Ecol. Econ. , 54(2–3) , 164–174, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.12.027.

Jasanoff, S., 2018: Just transitions: A humble approach to global energy futures. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. , 35, 11–14, doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.025.

Jolly, W.M. et al., 2015: Climate-induced variations in global wildfire danger from 1979 to 2013. Nat. Commun. , 6(1) , 7537, doi:10.1038/ncomms8537.

Jones, C.A. and D.L. Levy, 2009: Business Strategies and Climate Change. In: Changing Climates in North American Politics, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, pp. 218–240.

Jonsson, A.K. and A. Nilsson, 2014: Exploring the relationship between values and Pro-Environmental behaviour: The infuence of locus of control. Environ. Values, 23(3) , 297–314, doi:10.3197/096327114X13947900181752.

Jordan, A., D. Huitema, J. Schoenefeld, H. van Asselt, and J. Forster, 2018: Governing Climate Change Polycentrically. In: Governing Climate Change[Jordan, A., D. Huitema, H. Van Asselt, and J. Forster, (eds.)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 3–26.

Jordan, A.J. et al., 2015: Emergence of polycentric climate governance and its future prospects. Nat. Clim. Change, 5(11) , 977–982, doi:10.1038/nclimate2725.

Jost, C. et al., 2016: Understanding gender dimensions of agriculture and climate change in smallholder farming communities. Clim. Dev. , 8(2) , 133–144, doi:10.1080/17565529.2015.1050978.

Kahler, M., 2017: Domestic Sources of Transnational Climate Governance. Int. Interact. , 43(1) , 156–174, doi:10.1080/03050629.2017.1251687.

Kahneman, D., 2003: Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics. Am. Econ. Rev. , 93(5) , 1449–1475, doi:10.1257/000282803322655392.

Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky, 1979: Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291, doi:10.2307/1914185.

Kalkuhl, M., O. Edenhofer, and K. Lessmann, 2012: Learning or lock-in: Optimal technology policies to support mitigation. Resour. Energy Econ. , 34(1) , 1–23, doi:10.1016/j.reseneeco.2011.08.001.

Kallis, G., 2019: Socialism Without Growth. Capital. Nat. Social. , 30(2) , 189–206, doi:10.1080/10455752.2017.1386695.

Kamuti, T., 2015: A Critique of the Green Economy: Approach in the Wildlife Ranching Sector in South Africa. Afr. Insight , 45(1) , 146–168.

Kander, A., M. Jiborn, D.D. Moran, and T.O. Wiedmann, 2015: National greenhouse-gas accounting for effective climate policy on international trade. Nat. Clim. Change, 5(5) , 431.

Karlsson, M. and M. Gilek, 2020: Mind the gap: Coping with delay in environmental governance. Ambio, 49(5) , 1067–1075, doi:10.1007/s13280-019-01265-z.

Karlsson, M., E. Alfredsson, and N. Westling, 2020: Climate policy co-benefits: a review. Clim. Policy, 20(3) , 292–316, doi:10.1080/14693062.2020.1724070.

Karp, L. and A. Rezai, 2014: The Political Economy of Environmental Policy with Overlapping Generations. Int. Econ. Rev. , 55(3) , 711–733, doi:10.1111/iere.12068.

Kartha, S. et al., 2018a: Cascading biases against poorer countries. Nat. Clim. Change, 8(5) , 348–349, doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0152-7.

Kartha, S., S. Caney, N.K. Dubash, and G. Muttitt, 2018b: Whose carbon is burnable? Equity considerations in the allocation of a ‘right to extract.’Clim. Change, 150(1–2) , 117–129, doi:10.1007/s10584-018-2209-z.

Kashwan, P., F. Biermann, A. Gupta, and C. Okereke, 2020: Planetary justice: Prioritizing the poor in earth system governance. Earth Syst. Gov. , 6, 100075, doi:10.1016/j.esg.2020.100075.

Kasperbauer, T.J., 2016: The Implications of Psychological Limitations for the Ethics of Climate Change. Environ. Values, 25(3) , 353–370, doi:10.3197/096327116X14598445991547.

Kasztelan, A., 2017: Green Growth, Green Economy and Sustainable Development: Terminological and Relational Discourse. Prague Econ. Pap. , 26(4) , 487–499, doi:10.18267/j.pep.626.

Katz-Gerro, T., I. Greenspan, F. Handy, H.-Y. Lee, and A. Frey, 2015: Environmental Philanthropy and Environmental Behavior in Five Countries: Is There Convergence Among Youth?Volunt. Int. J. Volunt. Nonprofit Organ. , 26(4) , 1485–1509, doi:10.1007/s11266-014-9496-4.

Kayal, M., H. Lewis, J. Ballard, and E. Kayal, 2019: Humanity and the 21st century’s resource gauntlet: a commentary on Ripple et al.’s article ‘World scientists’ warning to humanity: a second notice’. Rethink. Ecol. , 4, 21–30, doi:10.3897/rethinkingecology.4.32116.

Keen, S., 2021: The appallingly bad neoclassical economics of climate change. Globalizations, 18(7) , 1149–1177, doi:10.1080/14747731.2020.1807856.

Keesstra, S. et al., 2018: The superior effect of nature based solutions in land management for enhancing ecosystem services. Sci. Total Environ. , 610–611, 997–1009, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.077.

Kenis, A. and M. Lievens, 2014: Searching for `the Political’ in Environmental Politics. Env. Polit. , 23(4) , 531–548, doi:10.1080/09644016.2013.870067.

Keohane, R.O. and D.G. Victor, 2011: The Regime Complex for Climate Change. Perspect. Polit. , 9(1) , 7–23, doi:10.1017/S1537592710004068.

Keohane, R.O. and M. Oppenheimer, 2016: Paris: Beyond the Climate Dead End through Pledge and Review?Polit. Gov. , 4(3) , 142–151, doi:10.17645/pag.v4i3.634.

Keohane, R.O. and D.G. Victor, 2016: Cooperation and discord in global climate policy. Nat. Clim. Change, 6(6) , 570–575, doi:10.1038/nclimate2937.

Keynes, J.M., 1936: The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. 1st ed. Palgrave Macmillan, London, UK, 283pp.

Khajehpour, H., Y. Saboohi, and G. Tsatsaronis, 2019: Exergy-Based Responsibility Allocation of Climate Change. In: University Initiatives in Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation, Springer, New York, NY, USA, pp. 291–315.

Kinley, R., M.Z. Cutajar, Y. de Boer, and C. Figueres, 2021: Beyond good intentions, to urgent action: Former UNFCCC leaders take stock of thirty years of international climate change negotiations. Clim. Policy, 21(5) , 593–603, doi:10.1080/14693062.2020.1860567.

Kivimaa, P., M. Hildén, D. Huitema, A. Jordan, and J. Newig, 2017: Experiments in climate governance – A systematic review of research on energy and built environment transitions. J. Clean. Prod. , 169, 17–29, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.027.

Klausbruckner, C., H. Annegarn, L.R.F. Henneman, and P. Rafaj, 2016: A policy review of synergies and trade-offs in South African climate change mitigation and air pollution control strategies. Environ. Sci. Policy, 57, 70–78, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.12.001.

Klenert, D., and L. Mattauch, 2016: How to make a carbon tax reform progressive: The role of subsistence consumption. Econ. Lett. , 138, 100–103, doi:10.1016/J.ECONLET.2015.11.019.

Klenert, D. et al., 2018: Making carbon pricing work for citizens. Nat. Clim. Change, 8(8) , 669–677, doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0201-2.

Klenert, D., F. Funke, L. Mattauch, and B. O’Callaghan, 2020: Five Lessons from COVID-19 for Advancing Climate Change Mitigation. Environ. Resour. Econ. , 76(4) , 751–778, doi:10.1007/s10640-020-00453-w.

Klinsky, S. and H. Winkler, 2014: Equity, sustainable development and climate policy. Clim. Policy, 14(1) , 1–7, doi:10.1080/14693062.2014.859352.

Klinsky, S. and H. Winkler, 2018: Building equity in: strategies for integrating equity into modelling for a 1.5°C world. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. A, 376(2119) , 20160461 doi:10.1098/rsta.2016.0461.

Klinsky, S. et al., 2017: Why equity is fundamental in climate change policy research. Glob. Environ. Change, 44, 170–173, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.08.002.

Knapp, V. and D. Pevec, 2018: Promises and limitations of nuclear fission energy in combating climate change. Energy Policy, 120, 94–99, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2018.05.027.

Koasidis, K. et al., 2020: The UK and German Low-Carbon Industry Transitions from a Sectoral Innovation and System Failures Perspective. Energies, 13(19) , 4994, doi:10.3390/en13194994.

Köberle, A.C., 2019: The Value of BECCS in IAMs: a Review. Curr. Sustain. Energy Reports, 6(4) , 107–115, doi:10.1007/s40518-019-00142-3.

Köberle, A.C., P.R.R. Rochedo, A.F.P. Lucena, A. Szklo, and R. Schaeffer, 2020: Brazil’s emission trajectories in a well-below 2°C world: the role of disruptive technologies versus land-based mitigation in an already low-emission energy system. Clim. Change, 162(4) , 1823–1842, doi:10.1007/s10584-020-02856-6.

Koch, M., 2012: Capitalism and Climate Change. Theoretical Discussion, Historical Development and Policy Responses. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London, UK, 177 pp.Köhler, J. et al., 2018: Modelling Sustainability Transitions: An Assessment of Approaches and Challenges. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simulation, 21, 8, doi:10.18564/jasss.3629.

Köhler, J. et al., 2019: An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transitions, 31, 1–32, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004.

Kooiman, J., 2003: Governing as Governance Governing as governance. 1st ed. SAGE Publications Ltd, London, UK, 262 pp.

Kotzé, L.J., 2018: Chapter 3: The Sustainable Development Goals: an existential critique alongside three new-millennial analytical paradigms. In: Sustainable Development Goals Law, Theory and Implementation[French, D. and L.J. Kotzé (eds.)]. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 41–65.

Kramer, G.J., 2018: Energy scenarios – Exploring disruption and innovation. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. , 37, 247–250, doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.10.047.

Kurz, T., B. Gardner, B. Verplanken, and C. Abraham, 2015: Habitual Behaviors or Patterns of Practice? Explaining and Changing Repetitive Climate-Relevant Actions. WIREs Clim. Change, 6(1) , 113–128, doi:10.1002/wcc.327.

Kuzemko, C., M. Lockwood, C. Mitchell, and R. Hoggett, 2016: Governing for sustainable energy system change: Politics, contexts and contingency. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. , 12, 96–105, doi:10.1016/j.erss.2015.12.022.

Kverndokk, S., 2018: Climate Policies, Distributional Effects and Transfers Between Rich and Poor Countries. Int. Rev. Environ. Resour. Econ. , 12(2–3) , 129–176, doi:10.1561/101.00000100.

Kverndokk, S., E. Nævdal, and L. Nøstbakken, 2014: The trade-off between intra- and intergenerational equity in climate policy. Eur. Econ. Rev. , 69, 40–58, doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2014.01.007.

Kyle, J., F. Sussman, A. Kindle, J. Kuna, and B. Hurley, 2016: Multi-Scale Economic Methodologies and Scenarios Workshop. Washington, DC, USA,.

Laakso, S., A. Berg, and M. Annala, 2017: Dynamics of experimental governance: A meta-study of functions and uses of climate governance experiments. J. Clean. Prod. , 169, 8–16, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.140.

Laborde Debucquet, D. and W. Martin, 2017: Formulas for failure? Were the Doha tariff formulas too ambitious for success?: In: Agriculture, development, and the global trading system: 2000– 2015[Bouët, A. and D. Laborde Debucquet (eds.)]. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington DC, USA, 24 pp.

Lachapelle, E. and M. Paterson, 2013: Drivers of national climate policy. Clim. Policy, 13(5) , 547–571, doi:10.1080/14693062.2013.811333.

Lachapelle, E., R. MacNeil, and M. Paterson, 2017: The political economy of decarbonisation: from green energy ‘race’ to green ‘division of labour.’New Polit. Econ. , 22(3) , 311–327, doi:10.1080/13563467.2017.1240669.

Lamb, W.F. and J.K. Steinberger, 2017: Human well‐being and climate change mitigation. WIREs Clim. Change, 8(6) , doi:10.1002/wcc.485.

Lamb, W.F. and J.C. Minx, 2020: The political economy of national climate policy: Architectures of constraint and a typology of countries. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. , 64, 101429, doi:10.1016/j.erss.2020.101429.

Lamb, W.F. et al., 2021: A review of trends and drivers of greenhouse gas emissions by sector from 1990 to 2018. Environ. Res. Lett. , 16(7) , 073005, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ABEE4E.

Lange, A., C. Vogt, and A. Ziegler, 2007: On the importance of equity in international climate policy: An empirical analysis. Energy Econ. , 29(3) , 545–562, doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2006.09.002.

Lange, A., A. Löschel, C. Vogt, and A. Ziegler, 2010: On the self-interested use of equity in international climate negotiations. Eur. Econ. Rev. , 54(3) , 359–375, doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2009.08.006.

Latouche, S., 2018: The Path to Degrowth for a Sustainable Society. In: Factor X Challenges, Implementation Strategies and Examples for a Sustainable Use of Natural Resources[Lehmann, H. (eds)], Springer, New York, NY, USA, pp. 277–284.

Lazarus, R. J., 2009: Super Wicked Problems and Climate Change: Restraining the Present to Liberate the Future. Georgetown University Law Centre, Washington D.C, USA, 84 pp. https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/159 (Accessed January 15, 2020).

Le Billon, P., P. Lujala, D. Singh, V. Culbert, and B. Kristoffersen, 2021: Fossil fuels, climate change, and the COVID-19 crisis: pathways for a just and green post-pandemic recovery. Clim. Policy, 21 (10),1347-1356, doi:10.1080/14693062.2021.1965524.

Le Quéré, C. et al., 2019: “Drivers of declining CO2 emissions in 18 developed economies.”Nature Climate Change9, no. 3, 213–217.

Le Quéré, C. et al., 2020: Temporary reduction in daily global CO2 emissions during the COVID-19 forced confinement. Nat. Clim. Change, 10(7) , 647–653, doi:10.1038/s41558-020-0797-x.

Leach, M. et al., 2018: Equity and sustainability in the anthropocene: A social-ecological systems perspective on their intertwined futures. Glob. Sustainability, 1, e13, doi:10.1017/sus.2018.12.

Legrand, M.D.P. and H. Hagemann, 2017: Retrospectives: Do Productive Recessions Show the Recuperative Powers of Capitalism? Schumpeter’s Analysis of the Cleansing Effect. J. Econ. Perspect. , 31(1) , 245–256, doi:10.1257/jep.31.1.245.

Lenton, T.M. et al., 2019: Climate tipping points – too risky to bet against. Nature, 575(7784) , 592–595, doi:10.1038/d41586-019-03595-0.

Lenzen, M., J. Murray, F. Sack, and T. Wiedmann, 2007: Shared producer and consumer responsibility – Theory and practice. Ecol. Econ. , 61(1) , 27–42.

Levin, K., B. Cashore, S. Bernstein, and G. Auld, 2012: Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy Sciences, 45(2) , 123–152, doi:10.1007/s11077-012-9151-0.

Levitt, S.D. and J.A. List, 2009: Field experiments in economics: The past, the present, and the future. Eur. Econ. Rev. , 53(1) , 1–18, doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2008.12.001.

Levy, D.L. and D. Egan, 2003: A Neo-Gramscian Approach to Corporate Political Strategy: Conflict and Accommodation in the Climate Change Negotiations. J. Manag. Stud. , 40(4) , 803–829, doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00361.

Levy, D.L. and A. Spicer, 2013: Contested imaginaries and the cultural political economy of climate change. Organization, 20(5) , 659–678, doi:10.1177/1350508413489816.

Li, F.G.N., E. Trutnevyte, and N. Strachan, 2015: A review of socio-technical energy transition (STET) models. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 100, 290–305, doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.017.

Li, Q. and W.A. Pizer, 2018: The discount rate for public policy over the distant future. National Bureau of Economic Research,Cambridge MA, USA, 51 pp.

Lianos, M., 2019: Yellow vests and European democracy. Eur. Soc. , 21(1) , 1–3, doi:10.1080/14616696.2019.1570055.

Lin, J. and D.A. Kysar, 2020: Climate Change Litigation in the Asia Pacific. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Liu, L.-J. et al., 2021: Combining economic recovery with climate change mitigation: A global evaluation of financial instruments. Econ. Anal. Policy, 72, 438–453, doi:10.1016/j.eap.2021.09.009.

Liu, L., T. Wu, and Y. Huang, 2017: An equity-based framework for defining national responsibilities in global climate change mitigation. Clim. Dev. , 9(2) , 152–163, doi:10.1080/17565529.2015.1085358.

Liu, Z. et al., 2020: Near-real-time monitoring of global CO2 emissions reveals the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nat. Commun. , 11(1) , 1–12, doi:10.1038/s41467-020-18922-7.

Llavador, H., J.E. Roemer, and J. Silvestre, 2015: Sustainability for a Warming Planet . Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 238 pp.

Lo, A.Y., 2010: Active conflict or passive coherence? The political economy of climate change in China. Env. Polit. , 19(6) , 1012–1017, doi:10.1080/09644016.2010.518689.

Lo, K. and V. Castán Broto, 2019: Co-benefits, contradictions, and multi-level governance of low-carbon experimentation: Leveraging solar energy for sustainable development in China. Glob. Environ. Change, 59, 101993, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101993.

Lohmann, L., 2017: Toward a Political Economy of Neoliberal Climate Science. In: The Routledge Handbook of the Political Economy of Science, Routledge, Abingdon, UK, pp. 305–316.

Lohmann, L., 2019: Neoliberalism, law and nature. In: Research Handbook on Law, Environment and the Global South, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 32–63.

Lontzek, T.S., Y. Cai, K.L. Judd, and T.M. Lenton, 2015: Stochastic integrated assessment of climate tipping points indicates the need for strict climate policy. Nat. Clim. Change, 5(5) , 441–444, doi:10.1038/nclimate2570.

Loorbach, D., 2010: Transition Management for Sustainable Development: A Prescriptive, Complexity-Based Governance Framework. Governance, 23(1) , 161–183, doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2009.01471.x.

Lu, S., X. Bai, X. Zhang, W. Li, and Y. Tang, 2019: The impact of climate change on the sustainable development of regional economy. J. Clean. Prod. , 233, 1387–1395, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.074.

Maestre-Andrés, S., S. Drews, and J. van den Bergh, 2019: Perceived fairness and public acceptability of carbon pricing: a review of the literature. Clim. Policy, 19(9) , 1186–1204, doi:10.1080/14693062.2019.1639490.

Mainali, B., J. Luukkanen, S. Silveira, and J. Kaivo-oja, 2018: Evaluating Synergies and Trade-Offs among Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Explorative Analyses of Development Paths in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Sustainability, 10(3) , 815, doi:10.3390/su10030815.

Majone, G., 1975: On the notion of political feasibility. Eur. J. Polit. Res. , 3(3) , 259–274, doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.1975.tb00780.x.

Makomere, R. and K. Liti Mbeva, 2018: Squaring the Circle: Development Prospects Within the Paris Agreement. Carbon Clim. Law Rev. , 12(1) , 31–40, doi:10.21552/cclr/2018/1/7.

Malik, A. and J. Lan, 2016: The role of outsourcing in driving global carbon emissions. Econ. Syst. Res. , 28(2) , 168–182, doi:10.1080/09535314.2016.1172475.

Malik, A., D. McBain, T.O. Wiedmann, M. Lenzen, and J. Murray, 2019: Advancements in Input‐Output Models and Indicators for Consumption‐Based Accounting. J. Ind. Ecol. , 23(2) , 300–312, doi:10.1111/jiec.12771.

Malm, A., 2015: Exploding in the Air: Beyond the Carbon Trail of Neoliberal Globalisation. In: Polarising Development: Alternatives to Neoliberalism and the Crisis[Pradella, L. and T. Marois, (eds.)]. Pluto Press, London, UK, pp. 108–118.

Malm, A., 2016: Fossil Capital: The Rise of Steam Power and the Roots of Global Warming. Verso Books, London, UK, 615 pp.

Mangat, R., S. Dalby, and M. Paterson, 2018: Divestment discourse: war, justice, morality and money. Env. Polit. , 27(2) , 187–208, doi:10.1080/09644016.2017.1413725.

Marchau, V.A.W.J., R.J. Lempert, W.E. Walker, P.J.T.M. Bloemen, and S.W. Popper, 2019: Decision Making under Deep Uncertainty. Springer International Publishing, New York, NY, USA, 405 pp.

Marcu, A., 2017: Article 6 of the Paris Agreement: Reflections on Party Submissions before Marrakech. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), Geneva, Switzerland, 32pp,https://ercst.org/article-6-of-the-paris-agreement-reflections-on-submissions-by-parties-before-marrakech/ (Accessed February 15, 2021).

Markkanen, S. and A. Anger-Kraavi, 2019: Social impacts of climate change mitigation policies and their implications for inequality. Clim. Policy, 19(7) , 827–844, doi:10.1080/14693062.2019.1596873.

Marmot, M. and R. Bell, 2018: The Sustainable Development Goals and Health Equity. Epidemiology, 29(1) , 5–7, doi:10.1097/EDE.0000000000000773.

Marquardt, J., 2017: Conceptualizing power in multi-level climate governance. J. Clean. Prod. , 154, 167–175, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.176.

Marshall, G., 2014: Don’t even think about it: why our brains are wired to ignore climate change. Bloomsbury Publishing, London, UK, 260 pp.

Martinez, G.S. et al., 2019: Delegation size and equity in climate negotiations: An exploration of key issues. Carbon Manag. , 10(4) , 431–435, doi:10.1080/17583004.2019.1630243.

Matthews, N.E., L. Stamford, and P. Shapira, 2019: Aligning sustainability assessment with responsible research and innovation: Towards a framework for Constructive Sustainability Assessment. Sustain. Prod. Consum. , 20, 58–73, doi:10.1016/j.spc.2019.05.002.

Mazzucato, M., 2013: Financing innovation: creative destruction vs. destructive creation. Ind. Corp. Change, 22(4) , 851–867, doi:10.1093/icc/dtt025.

McCauley, D. and R. Heffron, 2018: Just transition: Integrating climate, energy and environmental justice. Energy Policy, 119, 1–7, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2018.04.014.

McCrary, J. and H. Royer, 2011: The Effect of Female Education on Fertility and Infant Health: Evidence from School Entry Policies Using Exact Date of Birth. Am. Econ. Rev. , 101(1) , 158–195, doi:10.1257/aer.101.1.158.

McGlade, C. and P. Ekins, 2015: The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2°C. Nature, 517(7533) , 187–190, doi:10.1038/nature14016.

McRae, S. and R. Meeks, 2016: Price perception and electricity demand with nonlinear tariffs. Ann Arbor, MI, USAhttps://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Price-perception-and-electricity-demand-with-McRae-Meeks/57dd8dca3ebd0c9d835e604b3f233b2f6197d99d

Meckling, J., 2018: The developmental state in global regulation: Economic change and climate policy. Eur. J. Int. Relations, 24(1) , 58–81, doi:10.1177/1354066117700966.

Meckling, J., 2019: Governing renewables: Policy feedback in a global energy transition. Environ. Plan. C Polit. Sp. , 37(2) , 317–338, doi:10.1177/2399654418777765.

Meckling, J. and J. Nahm, 2018: When do states disrupt industries? Electric cars and the politics of innovation. Rev. Int. Polit. Econ. , 25(4) , 505–529, doi:10.1080/09692290.2018.1434810.

Meckling, J., T. Sterner, and G. Wagner, 2017: Policy sequencing toward decarbonization. Nat. Energy, 2(12) , 918–922, doi:10.1038/s41560-017-0025-8.

Mehling, M.A., H. Van Asselt, K. Das, S. Droege, and C. Verkuijl, 2019: Designing Border Carbon Adjustments for Enhanced Climate Action. Am. J. Int. Law, 113(3) , 433–481, doi:10.1017/ajil.2019.22.

Meng, J. et al., 2018: The rise of South-South trade and its effect on global CO2 emissions. Nat. Commun. , 9(1) , doi:10.1038/s41467-018-04337-y.

Meng, K.C. and A. Rode, 2019: The Social Cost of Lobbying over Climate Policy. Nat. Clim. Change, 9(6) , 472–476, doi:10.1038/s41558-019-0489-6.

Mercure, J.F. et al., 2021: Risk-opportunity analysis for transformative policy design and appraisal. Glob. Environ. Change, 70, 102359, doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2021.102359.

Metcalf, G.E., 2009: Market-based Policy Options to Control U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. J. Econ. Perspect. , 23(2) , 5–27, doi:10.1257/jep.23.2.5.

Michaelowa, A., M. Allen, and F. Sha, 2018: Policy Instruments for Limiting Global Temperature Rise to 1.5C – Can Humanity Rise to the Challenge?Clim. Policy, 18(3) , 275–286, doi:10.1080/14693062.2018.1426977.

Michaelowa, K. and A. Michaelowa, 2017: Transnational Climate Governance Initiatives: Designed for Effective Climate Change Mitigation?Int. Interact. , 43(1) , 129–155, doi:10.1080/03050629.2017.1256110.

Michelsen, G., M. Adomßent, P. Martens, and M. von Hauff, 2016: Sustainable Development – Background and Context. In: Sustainability Science[Heinrichs, H., P. Martens, G. Michelsen, and A. Wiek, (eds.)], Springer Netherlands, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 5–29.

Mildenberger, M., 2020: Carbon Captured: How Business and Labor Control Climate Politics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 368 pp.

Milkoreit, M., 2017: Imaginary politics: Climate change and making the future. Elem Sci Anth, 5(0) , 62, doi:10.1525/elementa.249.

Milkoreit, M. and K. Haapala, 2019: The global stocktake: design lessons for a new review and ambition mechanism in the international climate regime. Int. Environ. Agreements Polit. Law Econ. , 19(1) , 89–106, doi:10.1007/s10784-018-9425-x.

Millar, H., E. Bourgeois, S. Bernstein, and M. Hoffmann, 2020: Self-reinforcing and self-undermining feedbacks in subnational climate policy implementation. Env. Polit. , 0(0) , 1–20, doi:10.1080/09644016.2020.1825302.

Minsky, H.P., 1986: Stabilizing an unstable economy. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 432 pp.

Mitchell, T. and S. Maxwell, 2010: Defining climate compatible development . London, UK, 1–6 pp.

Monasterolo, I., 2017: A climate stress-test of financial institutions. Green Finance Research Advances, Vienna, Austria, Vienna University of Economics and Business, 17 pp.

Moore, F.C., U. Baldos, T. Hertel, and D. Diaz, 2017: New science of climate change impacts on agriculture implies higher social cost of carbon. Nat. Commun. , 8(1) , 1607, doi:10.1038/s41467-017-01792-x.

Moore, G.F. et al., 2019: From complex social interventions to interventions in complex social systems: Future directions and unresolved questions for intervention development and evaluation. Evaluation, 25(1) , 23–45, doi:10.1177/1356389018803219.

Mora, C. et al., 2018: Bitcoin emissions alone could push global warming above 2°C. Nat. Clim. Change, 8(11) , 931–933, doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0321-8.

Mori, A.S., K.P. Lertzman, and L. Gustafsson, 2017: Biodiversity and ecosystem services in forest ecosystems: a research agenda for applied forest ecology. J. Appl. Ecol. , 54(1) , 12–27, doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12669.

Moss, R. et al., 2016: Understanding dynamics and resilience in complex interdependent systems. Washington, DC, USA. https://www.globalchange.gov/browse/reports/understanding-dynamics-and-resilience-complex-interdependent-systems (Accessed July 23, 2021).

Mugambiwa, S.S. and H.M. Tirivangasi, 2017: Climate change: A threat towards achieving ‘sustainable development goal number two’ (end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture) in South Africa. Jamba J. Disaster Risk Stud. , 9(1) , a350, doi:10.4102/jamba.v9i1.350.

Mulugetta, Y. and F. Urban, 2010: Deliberating on low carbon development. Energy Policy, 38(12) , 7546–7549, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.05.049.

Myhre, G., C.E.L. Myhre, B.H. Samset, and T. Storelvmo, 2013: Aerosols and their Relation to Global Climate and Climate Sensitivity. Nat. Educ. Knowl. , 4(7) https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/aerosols-and-their-relation-to-global-climate-102215345/ (Accessed June 18, 2021).

Mylan, J., 2018: Sustainable Consumption in Everyday Life: A Qualitative Study of UK Consumer Experiences of Meat Reduction. Sustainability, 10(7) , 2307, doi:10.3390/su10072307.

Nabi, R.L., A. Gustafson, and R. Jensen, 2018: Framing Climate Change: Exploring the Role of Emotion in Generating Advocacy Behavior. Sci. Commun. , 40(4) , 442–468, doi:10.1177/1075547018776019.

Naegele, H. and A. Zaklan, 2019: Does the EU ETS cause carbon leakage in European manufacturing?J. Environ. Econ. Manage. , 93, 125–147, doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2018.11.004.

Najam, A., 2005: Developing Countries and Global Environmental Governance: From Contestation to Participation to Engagement. Int. Environ. Agreements Polit. Law Econ. , 5(3) , 303–321, doi:10.1007/s10784-005-3807-6.

Nakicenovic, N. et al., 2000: Emissions scenarios – Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 27 pp.

Nash, N. et al., 2017: Climate-relevant behavioral spillover and the potential contribution of social practice theory. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change, 8(6) , doi:10.1002/wcc.481.

Nash, S.L. and R. Steurer, 2019: Taking stock of Climate Change Acts in Europe: living policy processes or symbolic gestures?Clim. Policy, 19(8) , 1052–1065, doi:10.1080/14693062.2019.1623164.

Nasiritousi, N., and K. Bäckstrand, 2019: International Climate Politics in the post-Paris era, Stockholm University Stockholm, Sweden, 1–19 pp, https://nordregio.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/International-Climate-Politics-in-the-post-Paris-era_Nasiritousi.pdf (Accessed July 13, 2021).

National Academies of Sciences, 2021: Reflecting Sunlight . National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA, 312 pp.

Nelson, R.R. and S.G. Winter, 1982: An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, USA, 454 pp.

Nesshöver, C. et al., 2017: The science, policy and practice of nature-based solutions: An interdisciplinary perspective. Sci. Total Environ. , 579, 1215–1227, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.106.

Netra, C. et al., 2018: Governing solar radiation management . Washington, DC, USA, 72 pp.

Neuteleers, S. and B. Engelen, 2015: Talking money: How market-based valuation can undermine environmental protection. Ecol. Econ. , 117, 253–260, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.06.022.

Neville, K.J., J. Cook, J. Baka, K. Bakker, and E.S. Weinthal, 2019: Can shareholder advocacy shape energy governance? The case of the US antifracking movement. Rev. Int. Polit. Econ. , 26(1) , 104–133, doi:10.1080/09692290.2018.1488757.

Newbery, D., 2018: Evaluating the case for supporting renewable electricity. Energy Policy, 120, 684–696, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2018.05.029.

Newell, P. and M. Paterson, 1998: A climate for business: global warming, the state and capital. Rev. Int. Polit. Econ. , 5(4) , 679–703, doi:10.1080/096922998347426.

Newell, P. and M. Paterson, 2010: Climate Capitalism: Global Warming and the Transformation of the Global Economy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK 222 pp.

Newell, P. and D. Mulvaney, 2013: The political economy of the ‘just transition.’, Geogr. J. , 179(2) , 132–140, doi:10.1111/geoj.12008.

Newell, P. and O. Taylor, 2018: Contested landscapes: the global political economy of climate-smart agriculture. J. Peasant Stud. , 45(1) , 108–129, doi:10.1080/03066150.2017.1324426.

Newell, P., M. Paterson, and M. Craig, 2021: The Politics of Green Transformations: An Introduction to the Special Section. New Polit. Econ. , 26 (6), 903–906, doi:10.1080/13563467.2020.1810215.

Newman, P., 2020: COVID, CITIES and CLIMATE: Historical Precedents and Potential Transitions for the New Economy. Urban Science, 4(3) , 32, doi:10.3390/urbansci4030032.

Newman, P., T. Beatley, and H. Boyer, 2017: Resilient Cities. Island Press/Center for Resource Economics, Washington, DC, USA, 1–253 pp.

NGFS, 2020: Climate Scenarios for central banks and supervisors. Network for Greening Finance, Paris, France., 39 pphttps://www.ngfs.net/en/ngfs-climate-scenarios-central-banks-and-supervisors (Accessed July 15, 2021).

Nikas, A., H. Doukas, and A. Papandreou, 2019: A Detailed Overview and Consistent Classification of Climate-Economy Models. In: Understanding Risks and Uncertainties in Energy and Climate Policy: Multidisciplinary Methods and Tools for a Low Carbon Society[Doukas, H., A. Flamos, and J. Lieu, (eds.)]. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 1–54.

Nikas, A. et al., 2020: The desirability of transitions in demand: Incorporating behavioural and societal transformations into energy modelling. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. , 70, 101780, doi:10.1016/j.erss.2020.101780.

Nikoleris, A., J. Stripple, and P. Tenngart, 2017: Narrating climate futures: shared socioeconomic pathways and literary fiction. Clim. Change, 143(3–4) , 307–319, doi:10.1007/s10584-017-2020-2.

Nordhaus, W., 2007: Critical assumptions in the stern review on climate change. Science, 317(5835) , 201–202, doi:10.1126/science.1137316.

Nordhaus, W., 2008: A Question of Balance. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, USA.

Nordhaus, W.D.W. D., 1992: An optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases. Science, 258(5086) , 1315–1319, doi:10.1126/science.258.5086.1315.

Norgaard, K.M., 2011: Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life. 1st ed. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 304 pp.

Nunan, F., 2017: Making Climate Compatible Development Happen. 1st ed. Routledge, Abingdon, UK, 284 pp.

O’Hara, P.A., 2009: Political economy of climate change, ecological destruction and uneven development. Ecol. Econ. , 69(2) , 223–234, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.09.015.

O’Neill, B.C. et al., 2014: A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways. Clim. Change, 122(3) , 387–400, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0905-2.

Obergassel, W., L. Hermwille, and S. Oberthür, 2021: Harnessing international climate governance to drive a sustainable recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Clim. Policy, 21(10) , 1298–1306, doi:10.1080/14693062.2020.1835603.

Ojekunle, Z.O. et al., 2015: Global Climate Change: The Empirical Study of the Sensitivity Model in China’s Sustainable Development, Part 2. Energy Sources, Part A Recover. Util. Environ. Eff. , 37(8) , 861–869, doi:10.1080/15567036.2013.840695.

Okereke, C., 2017: A six-component model for assessing procedural fairness in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Clim. Change, 145(3–4) , 509–522, doi:10.1007/s10584-017-2106-x.

Okereke, C., 2018: Equity and Justice in Polycentric Climate Governance. In: Governing Climate Change[Jordan, A., D. Huitema, H. Van Asselt, and J. Forster, (eds.)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 320–337.

Okereke, C. and D. Russel, 2010: Regulatory Pressure and Competitive Dynamics: Carbon Management Strategies of UK Energy-Intensive Companies. Calif. Manage. Rev. , 52(4) , 100–124, doi:10.1525/cmr.2010.52.4.100.

Okereke, C. and T.G. Ehresman, 2015: International environmental justice and the quest for a green global economy: introduction to special issue. Int. Environ. Agreements Polit. Law Econ. , 15(1) , 5–11, doi:10.1007/s10784-014-9264-3.

Okereke, C. and P. Coventry, 2016: Climate justice and the international regime: before, during, and after Paris. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change, 7(6) , 834–851, doi:10.1002/wcc.419.

Okereke, C. and A.-B.S. Massaquoi, 2017: Climate change, environment and development. In: Introduction to International Development: Approaches, Actors and Issues[Haslam, P., J. Schafer, and P. Beaudet (eds.)]. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 320–334.

Okereke, C., H. Bulkeley, and H. Schroeder, 2009: Conceptualizing climate governance beyond the international regime. Glob. Environ. Polit. , 9(1) , doi:10.1162/glep.2009.9.1.58.

Okereke, C. et al., 2019: Governing green industrialisation in Africa: Assessing key parameters for a sustainable socio-technical transition in the context of Ethiopia. World Dev. , 115, 279–290, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.11.019.

Onder, H., 2012: What does trade have to do with climate change? VOX CEPR Policy Portal, London UK. https://voxeu.org/article/what-does-trade-have-do-climate-change (Accessed July 21, 2021).

Osili, U.O. and B.T. Long, 2008: Does female schooling reduce fertility? Evidence from Nigeria. J. Dev. Econ. , 87(1) , 57–75, doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2007.10.003.

Page, B., G. Turan, and A. Zapantis, 2019: Global Status of CCS 2019. Docklands, Australia., 46 pphttps://www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/GCC_GLOBAL_STATUS_REPORT_2019.pdf (Accessed June 13, 2021).

Pan, X., F. Teng, Y. Ha, and G. Wang, 2014: Equitable Access to Sustainable Development: Based on the comparative study of carbon emission rights allocation schemes. Appl. Energy, 130, 632–640, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.03.072.

Parker, C.F., C. Karlsson, and M. Hjerpe, 2017: Assessing the European Union’s global climate change leadership: from Copenhagen to the Paris Agreement. J. Eur. Integr. , 39(2) , 239–252, doi:10.1080/07036337.2016.1275608.

Parrique, T. et al., 2019: Decoupling Debunked: Evidence and arguments against green growth as a sole strategy for sustainability. The European Environmental BureauBrussels, Belgium 80 pp.

Paterson, M., 2021: Climate change and international political economy: between collapse and transformation. Rev. Int. Polit. Econ. , 28(2) , 394–405, doi:10.1080/09692290.2020.1830829.

Paterson, M. and X. P‐Laberge, 2018: Political economies of climate change. WIREs Clim. Change, 9(2) , e506, doi:10.1002/wcc.506.

Patterson, J.J. et al., 2018: Political feasibility of 1.5°C societal transformations: the role of social justice. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustainability, 31, 1–9, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2017.11.002.

Pearse, R., 2017: Pricing Carbon in Australia: Contestation, the State and Market Failure. Routledge, Abingdon, UK, 156 pp.

Peel, J., and H. M. Osofsky, 2020: Climate Change Litigation. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. , 16 (1), 21–38, doi:10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-022420-122936.

Pelling, M. and D. Manuel-Navarrete, 2011: From Resilience to Transformation: the Adaptive Cycle in Two Mexican Urban Centers. Ecol. Soc. , 16(2), 11, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26268885.

Perez, C., 2001: Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, 224 pp.

Peters, G.P., J.C. Minx, C.L. Weber, and O. Edenhofer, 2011: Growth in emission transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. , 108(21) , 8903–8908, doi:10.1073/pnas.1006388108.

Peters, G.P., R.M. Andrew, S. Solomon, and P. Friedlingstein, 2015: Measuring a fair and ambitious climate agreement using cumulative emissions. Environ. Res. Lett. , 10(10) , 105004, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/10/105004.

Pettenger, M.E., 2016: The Social Construction of Climate Change. Routledge, Abingdon, UK, 280 pp.

Pezzey, J.C. V, 2018: High unknowability of climate damage valuation means the social cost of carbon will always be disputed. Centre for Climate and Energy Policy,Canberra, Australia, 21 pp.

Pickering, J., F. Jotzo, and P.J. Wood, 2015: Sharing the Global Climate Finance Effort Fairly with Limited Coordination. Glob. Environ. Polit. , 15(4) , 39–62, doi:10.1162/GLEP_a_325.

Pickering, J., J.S. McGee, T. Stephens, and S.I. Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, 2018: The impact of the US retreat from the Paris Agreement: Kyoto revisited?Clim. Policy, 18(7) , 818–827, doi:10.1080/14693062.2017.1412934.

Piggot, G., 2018: The influence of social movements on policies that constrain fossil fuel supply. Clim. Policy, 18(7) , 942–954, doi:10.1080/14693062.2017.1394255.

Pindyck, R.S., 2013: Climate change policy: What do the models tell us?J. Econ. Lit. , 51(3) , 860–872, doi:10.1257/jel.51.3.860.

Piñero, P., M. Bruckner, H. Wieland, E. Pongrácz, and S. Giljum, 2019: The raw material basis of global value chains: allocating environmental responsibility based on value generation. Econ. Syst. Res. , 31(2) , 206–227, doi:10.1080/09535314.2018.1536038.

Plumwood, V., 2004: Gender, Eco-Feminism and the Environment. In: Controversies in Environmental Sociology[White, R. (ed.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 43–60.

Pollitt, H., R. Lewney, B. Kiss-Dobronyi, and X. Lin, 2021: Modelling the economic effects of COVID-19 and possible green recovery plans: a post-Keynesian approach. Clim. Policy, 21 (10), 1257–1271, doi:10.1080/14693062.2021.1965525.

Polman, P., 2015: On the Business of Climate Change. Fletcher Forum World Aff. , 39(2).

Poortinga, W. et al., 2018: European Attitudes to Climate Change and Energy: Topline Results from Round 8 of the European Social Survey, European Social Survey, London, UK, 20 pp. https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/findings/ESS8_toplines_issue_9_climatechange.pdf (Accessed June 20, 2021)

Popp, A. et al., 2017: Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Change, 42, 331–345, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.10.002.

Pottier, A., J.-C. Hourcade, and E. Espagne, 2014: Modelling the redirection of technical change: The pitfalls of incorporeal visions of the economy. Energy Econ. , 42, 213–218, doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2013.12.003.

Povitkina, M., 2018: The limits of democracy in tackling climate change. Env. Polit. , 27(3) , 411–432, doi:10.1080/09644016.2018.1444723.

Pradhan, P., L. Costa, D. Rybski, W. Lucht, and J.P. Kropp, 2017: A Systematic Study of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Interactions. Earth’s Future, 5(11) , 1169–1179, doi:10.1002/2017EF000632.

Prados de la Escosura, L., 2015: World Human Development: 1870–2007. Rev. Income Wealth, 61(2) , 220–247, doi:10.1111/roiw.12104.

Prinn, R.G., J.M. Reilly, V.J. Karplus, and J. Jenkins, 2017: Insights for Accelerating Clean Energy Transitions, The MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Carbon Pricing under Political Constraints, Helsinki, Finland, 48 pp. http://globalchange.mit.edu (Accessed June 20, 2021).

Purdon, M., 2017: Neoclassical realism and international climate change politics: moral imperative and political constraint in international climate finance. J. Int. Relations Dev. , 20(2) , 263–300, doi:10.1057/jird.2013.5.

Quilcaille, Y., T. Gasser, P. Ciais, F. Lecocq, and M. Obersteiner, 2019: Carbon budgets based on new climate projections of the SSP scenarios and observations. European Geosciences Union (EGU) General Assembly, Vienna, Austria, pp 24. http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/15835/ (Accessed Jun 20, 2021).

Rabe, B.G., 2018: Can we price carbon?MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 376 pp.

Rajamani, L., 2016: The 2015 Paris Agreement: Interplay Between Hard, Soft and Non-Obligations: Table 1. J. Environ. Law, 28(2) , 337–358, doi:10.1093/jel/eqw015.

Ramos-Mejía, M., M.L. Franco-Garcia, and J.M. Jauregui-Becker, 2018: Sustainability transitions in the developing world: Challenges of socio-technical transformations unfolding in contexts of poverty. Environ. Sci. Policy, 84, 217–223, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.03.010.

Ransan-Cooper, H., S.A. Ercan, and S. Duus, 2018: When anger meets joy: how emotions mobilise and sustain the anti-coal seam gas movement in regional Australia. Soc. Mov. Stud. , 17(6) , 635–657, doi:10.1080/14742837.2018.1515624.

Rao, N., E.T. Lawson, W.N. Raditloaneng, D. Solomon, and M.N. Angula, 2019: Gendered vulnerabilities to climate change: insights from the semi-arid regions of Africa and Asia. Clim. Dev. , 11(1) , 14–26, doi:10.1080/17565529.2017.1372266.

Raupach, M.R. et al., 2014: Sharing a quota on cumulative carbon emissions. Nat. Clim. Change, 4(10) , 873–879, doi:10.1038/nclimate2384.

Raustiala, K. and D.G. Victor, 2004: The Regime Complex for Plant Genetic Resources. Int. Organ. , 58(02), pp277–309, doi:10.1017/S0020818304582036.

Raworth, K., 2018: Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist . Chelsea Green Publishing, Chelsea, USA, 323 pp.

Raymond, L., 2020: Carbon Pricing and Economic Populism: The Case of Ontario. Clim. Policy, 20(9) , 1127–1140, doi:10.1080/14693062.2020.1782824.

Rayner, S., 2012: Uncomfortable knowledge: The social construction of ignorance in science and environmental policy discourses. Econ. Soc. , 41(1) , 107–125, doi:10.1080/03085147.2011.637335.

Raza, M.Q. and A. Khosravi, 2015: A review on artificial intelligence based load demand forecasting techniques for smart grid and buildings. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. , 50, 1352–1372, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.065.

Realmonte, G. et al., 2019: An inter-model assessment of the role of direct air capture in deep mitigation pathways. Nat. Commun. , 10(1) , 3277, doi:10.1038/s41467-019-10842-5.

Reckien, D. et al., 2017: Climate change, equity and the Sustainable Development Goals: an urban perspective. Environ. Urban. , 29(1) , 159–182, doi:10.1177/0956247816677778.

Reilly, J.M., Y.-H.H. Chen, and H.D. Jacoby, 2021: The COVID-19 effect on the Paris agreement. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. , 8(1) , 16, doi:10.1057/s41599-020-00698-2.

Reisinger, A. et al., 2020: The concept of risk in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report: a summary of cross-Working Group discussions. Geneva, Switzerland, 15 pp.

Rennkamp, B., 2019: Power, coalitions and institutional change in South African climate policy. Clim. Policy, 19(6) , 756–770, doi:10.1080/14693062.2019.1591936.

Ricke, K., L. Drouet, K. Caldeira, and M. Tavoni, 2018: Country-level social cost of carbon. Nat. Clim. Change, 8(10) , 895–900, doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0282-y.

Rietig, K. and T. Laing, 2017: Policy Stability in Climate Governance: The case of the United Kingdom. Environ. Policy Gov. , 27(6) , 575–587, doi:10.1002/eet.1762.

Ringler, C., A. Bhaduri, and R. Lawford, 2013: The nexus across water, energy, land and food (WELF): potential for improved resource use efficiency?Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustainability, 5(6) , 617–624, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2013.11.002.

Rip, A. and R. Kemp, 1998: Technological change. In: Human choice and climate change. Battelle Press, Colombus, Ohio, USA, pp. 327–399.

Roberts, C., and F. W. Geels, 2019a: Conditions and intervention strategies for the deliberate acceleration of socio-technical transitions: lessons from a comparative multi-level analysis of two historical case studies in Dutch and Danish heating. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. , 31 (9), 1081–1103, doi:10.1080/09537325.2019.1584286.

Roberts, C. and F.W. Geels, 2019b: Conditions for politically accelerated transitions: Historical institutionalism, the multi-level perspective, and two historical case studies in transport and agriculture. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 140, 221–240, doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2018.11.019.

Roberts, C. et al., 2018: The politics of accelerating low-carbon transitions: Towards a new research agenda. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. , 44, 304–311, doi:10.1016/j.erss.2018.06.001.

Roberts, J.T. et al., 2020: Four agendas for research and policy on emissions mitigation and well-being. Glob. Sustainability, 3, e3, doi:10.1017/sus.2019.25.

Robinson, M. and T. Shine, 2018: Achieving a climate justice pathway to 1.5°C. Nat. Clim. Change, 8(7) , 564–569, doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0189-7.

Robiou du Pont, Y. et al., 2017: Equitable mitigation to achieve the Paris Agreement goals. Nat. Clim. Change, 7(1) , 38–43, doi:10.1038/nclimate3186.

Rochedo, P.R.R. et al., 2021: Is Green Recovery Enough? Analysing the Impacts of Post-COVID-19 Economic Packages. Energies, 14(17) , 5567, doi:10.3390/en14175567.

Roger, C., T. Hale, and L. Andonova, 2017: The Comparative Politics of Transnational Climate Governance. Int. Interact. , 43(1) , 1–25, doi:10.1080/03050629.2017.1252248.

Romanello, M. et al., 2021: The 2021 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: code red for a healthy future. Lancet , 398(10311) , 1619–1662, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01787-6.

Romer, P.M., 1986: Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth. J. Polit. Econ. , 94(5) , 1002–1037, doi:10.1086/261420.

Rosembloom, D. and J. Markard, 2020: A COVID-19 recovery for climate. Science, 368(6490) , 2019–2020, doi:10.1126/science.abc4887.

Rosen, R.A. and E. Guenther, 2015: The economics of mitigating climate change: What can we know?Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 91, 93–106, doi:10.1016/J.TECHFORE.2014.01.013.

Rosenbloom, D., B. Haley, and J. Meadowcroft, 2018: Critical choices and the politics of decarbonization pathways: Exploring branching points surrounding low-carbon transitions in Canadian electricity systems. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. , 37, 22–36, doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.022.

Rosendahl, K.E. and D.R. Rubiano, 2019: How Effective is Lithium Recycling as a Remedy for Resource Scarcity?Environ. Resour. Econ. , 74(3) , 985–1010, doi:10.1007/s10640-019-00356-5.

Rosenschöld, J.M. af, J.G. Rozema, and L.A. Frye-Levine, 2014: Institutional Inertia and Climate Change: A Review of the New Institutionalist Literature. WIREs Clim. Change, 5(5) , 639–648, doi:10.1002/wcc.292.

Rotmans, J., R. Kemp, and M. van Asselt, 2001: More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy. Foresight , 3(1) , 15–31, doi:10.1108/14636680110803003.

Routledge, P., A. Cumbers, and K.D. Derickson, 2018: States of just transition: Realising climate justice through and against the state. Geoforum, 88, 78–86, doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.11.015.

Rozenberg, J. and M. Fay, 2019: Beyond the Gap: How Countries Can Afford the Infrastructure They Need while Protecting the Planet . World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 199 pp.

Ruby, M.B., I. Walker, and H.M. Watkins, 2020: Sustainable Consumption: The Psychology of Individual Choice, Identity, and Behavior. J. Soc. Issues, 76(1) , 8–18, doi:10.1111/josi.12376.

Ruger, J.P. and R. Horton, 2020: Justice and health: The Lancet–Health Equity and Policy Lab Commission. Lancet , 395(10238) , 1680–1681, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30928-4.

Runhaar, H., B. Wilk, Å. Persson, C. Uittenbroek, and C. Wamsler, 2018: Mainstreaming climate adaptation: taking stock about ‘what works’ from empirical research worldwide. Reg. Environ. Change, 18(4) , 1201–1210, doi:10.1007/s10113-017-1259-5.

Sachs, J., G. Schmidt-Traub, C. Kroll, D. Durand-Delacre, and K. Teksoz, 2016: An SDG Index and Dashboards – Global Report . New York, NY, USA, 58 pp. https://www.sdgindex.org/reports/sdg-index-and-dashboards-2016/.

Safarzyńska, K., 2018: Integrating behavioural economics into climate-economy models: some policy lessons. Clim. Policy, 18(4) , 485–498, doi:10.1080/14693062.2017.1313718.

Sarewitz, D., 2020: Unknown Knowns. Issues Sci. Technol. , 37(1) , pp 18–19.

Saunders, H.D. et al., 2021: Energy Efficiency: What Has Research Delivered in the Last 40 Years?Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. , 46(1) , doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-012320-084937.

Scavenius, T.B.B. and S. Rayner, 2018: Institutional Capacity for Climate Change Response: A New Approach to Climate Politics. Routledge, Abingdon, UK, 164 pp.

Schlosberg, D., L.B. Collins, and S. Niemeyer, 2017: Adaptation policy and community discourse: risk, vulnerability, and just transformation. Env. Polit. , 26(3) , 413–437, doi:10.1080/09644016.2017.1287628.

Schreurs, M.A., 2016: The Paris Climate Agreement and the Three Largest Emitters: China, the United States, and the European Union. Polit. Gov. , 4(3) , 219, doi:10.17645/pag.v4i3.666.

Schultes, A. et al., 2018: Optimal international technology cooperation for the low-carbon transformation. Clim. Policy, 18(9) , 1165–1176, doi:10.1080/14693062.2017.1409190.

Schumpeter, J.A., 1934a: The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry Into Profits, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 255 pp.

Seto, K.C. et al., 2016: Carbon Lock-In: Types, Causes, and Policy Implications. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. , 41(1) , 425–452, doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085934.

Settele, J., J. Bishop, and S.G. Potts, 2016: Climate change impacts on pollination. Nat. Plants, 2(7) , 16092, doi:10.1038/nplants.2016.92.

Setzer, J. and L.C. Vanhala, 2019: Climate change litigation: A review of research on courts and litigants in climate governance. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change, 10(3) , e580, doi:10.1002/WCC.580.

Shackleton, R.T., P. Angelstam, B. van der Waal, and M. Elbakidze, 2017: Progress made in managing and valuing ecosystem services: a horizon scan of gaps in research, management and governance. Ecosyst. Serv. , 27, 232–241, doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.020.

Shan, Y., et. al, 2020: Impacts of COVID-19 and fiscal stimuli on global emissions and the Paris Agreement. Nat. Clim. Change, 11(3) , 200–206, doi:10.1038/s41558-020-00977-5.

Shang, C., T. Wu, G. Huang, and J. Wu, 2019: Weak sustainability is not sustainable: Socioeconomic and environmental assessment of Inner Mongolia for the past three decades. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. , 141, 243–252, doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.032.

Sharpe, S. and T.M. Lenton, 2021: Upward-scaling tipping cascades to meet climate goals: plausible grounds for hope. Clim. Policy, 21(4) , 421–433, doi:10.1080/14693062.2020.1870097.

Shemi, A., A. Magumise, S. Ndlovu, and N. Sacks, 2018: Recycling of tungsten carbide scrap metal: A review of recycling methods and future prospects. Miner. Eng. , 122, 195–205, doi:10.1016/J.MINENG.2018.03.036.

Shepherd, J.G., 2009: Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty. The Royal SocietyLondon, UK, 98 pp.

Shi, L. et al., 2016: Roadmap towards justice in urban climate adaptation research. Nat. Clim. Change, 6(2) , 131–137, doi:10.1038/nclimate2841.

Shishlov, I., R. Morel, and V. Bellassen, 2016: Compliance of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol in the first commitment period. Clim. Policy, 16(6) , 768–782, doi:10.1080/14693062.2016.1164658.

Shove, E. and N. Spurling, 2013: Sustainable practices: Social theory and climate change. Routledge, Abingdon, UK, 224 pp.

Sindico, F., 2015: Is the Paris Agreement Really Legally Binding?University of StrathclydeGlasgow, UK, 4 pp.

Singh, H.V., R. Bocca, P. Gomez, S. Dahlke, and M. Bazilian, 2019: The energy transitions index: An analytic framework for understanding the evolving global energy system. Energy Strateg. Rev. , 26, 100382, doi:10.1016/J.ESR.2019.100382.

Skovgaard, J., S.S. Ferrari, and Å. Knaggård, 2019: Mapping and clustering the adoption of carbon pricing policies: what polities price carbon and why?Clim. Policy, 19(9) , 1173–1185, doi:10.1080/14693062.2019.1641460.

Smajgl, A., J. Ward, and L. Pluschke, 2016: The water–food–energy nexus – Realising a new paradigm. J. Hydrol. , 533, 533–540, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.12.033.

Smidfelt Rosqvist, L. and L. Winslott Hiselius, 2016: Online shopping habits and the potential for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from passenger transport. J. Clean. Prod. , 131, 163–169, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.054.

Smit, B., Pilifosova, O., Burton, I., B. Challenger, S. Huq, R.J.T. Klein, and G. Yohe, 2001: Adaptation to Climate Change and Variability in the Context of Sustainable Development. In: Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [McCarthy, J.J, O.F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken, and K.S. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 877–912.

Smith, J. and Patterson, J., 2018: Global Climate Justice Activism: “The New Protagonists” and their Projects for a Just Transition. In: Ecologically Unequal Exchange: Environmental Injustice in Comparative and Historical Perspective[Frey, R.S, P.K. Gellert, and H.F. Dahms (eds.)]. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, USA, pp. 245–272.

Song, M., S. Zhu, J. Wang, and J. Zhao, 2020: Share green growth: Regional evaluation of green output performance in China. Int. J. Prod. Econ. , 219, 152–163, doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.05.012.

Sorman, A.H., E. Turhan, and M. Rosas-Casals, 2020: Democratizing energy, energizing democracy: Central dimensions surfacing in the debate. Front. Energy Res. , 8, 279.

Sovacool, B.K., B.-O. Linnér, and M.E. Goodsite, 2015: The political economy of climate adaptation. Nat. Clim. Change, 5(7) , 616, doi:10.1038/nclimate2665.

Sovacool, B.K., A. Hook, M. Martiskainen, and L. Baker, 2019: The whole systems energy injustice of four European low-carbon transitions. Glob. Environ. Change, 58, 101958, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101958.

Spence, A., W. Poortinga, and N. Pidgeon, 2012: The Psychological Distance of Climate Change. Risk Anal. , 32(6) , 957–972, doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01695.x.

Spijkers, O., 2018: Intergenerational Equity and the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability, 10(11) , 3836, doi:10.3390/su10113836.

Steffen, B. and T.S. Schmidt, 2019: A quantitative analysis of 10 multilateral development banks’ investment in conventional and renewable power-generation technologies from 2006 to 2015. Nat. Energy, 4(1) , 75–82 , doi:10.1038/s41560-018-0280-3.

Stehfest, E. et al., 2009: Climate benefits of changing diet. Clim. Change, 95(1) , 83–102, doi:10.1007/s10584-008-9534-6.

Stehr, N., 2005: Knowledge Politics: governing the consequences of science and technology. Routledge, Abingdon, UK, 252 pp.

Steinberger, J.K., W.F. Lamb, and M. Sakai, 2020: Your money or your life? The carbon-development paradox. Environ. Res. Lett. , 15(4) , 044016, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab7461.

Stephan, U., M. Patterson, C. Kelly, and J. Mair, 2016: Organizations Driving Positive Social Change. J. Manage. , 42(5) , 1250–1281, doi:10.1177/0149206316633268.

Stern, N., 2007: The economics of climate change: The Stern review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 692 pp.

Stern, N., 2018: Public economics as if time matters: Climate change and the dynamics of policy. J. Public Econ. , 162, 4–17, doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2018.03.006.

Stern, N. and J.E. Stiglitz, 2017: Report of the high-level commission on carbon prices. Washington, DC, USA, 53 pp.

Stern, N. and A. Valero, 2021: Research policy, Chris Freeman special issue innovation, growth and the transition to net-zero emissions. Res. Policy, 50(9) , 104293, doi:10.1016/j.respol.2021.104293.

Stern, N., J.E. Stiglitz, and J. Stiglitz, 2021: The Social Cost of Carbon, Risk, Distribution, Market Failures: An alternative approach. Cambridge, MA, USA, 65 pp.

Stern, N.H., 2015: Why are we waiting? The logic, urgency, and promise of tackling climate change. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 406 pp.

Stern, P.C., T. Dietz, G.T. Gardner, J. Gilligan, and M.P. Vandenbergh, 2010: Energy Efficiency Merits More Than a Nudge. Science, 328(5976) , 308–309, doi:10.1126/science.328.5976.308.

Steurer, R. and C. Clar, 2018: The ambiguity of federalism in climate policy-making: how the political system in Austria hinders mitigation and facilitates adaptation. J. Environ. Policy Plan. , 20(2) , 252–265, doi:10.1080/1523908X.2017.1411253.

Stevenson, H. and J.S. Dryzek, 2013: Democratizing Global Climate Governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 268 pp.

Stevenson, H., G. Auld, J.I. Allan, L. Elliott, and J. Meadowcroft, 2021: The Practical Fit of Concepts: Ecosystem Services and the Value of Nature. Glob. Environ. Polit. , 21(2) , 3–22, doi:10.1162/GLEP_A_587.

Stiglitz, J.E., 2019: Addressing climate change through price and non-price interventions. Eur. Econ. Rev. , 119, 594–612, doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2019.05.007.

Stoddard, I. et al., 2021: Three Decades of Climate Mitigation: Why Haven’t We Bent the Global Emissions Curve?Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. , 46(1) , 653–689, doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-011104.

Stoerk, T., G. Wagner, and R.E.T. Ward, 2018: Policy Brief – Recommendations for Improving the Treatment of Risk and Uncertainty in Economic Estimates of Climate Impacts in the Sixth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy, 12(2) , 371–376, doi:10.1093/reep/rey005.

Stokes, L.C., 2013: The politics of renewable energy policies: The case of feed-in tariffs in Ontario, Canada. Energy Policy, 56, 490–500, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.01.009.

Stokes, L.C., 2020: Short Circuiting Policy: Interest Groups and the Battle Over Clean Energy and Climate Policy in the American States. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 320 pp.

Stoll-Kleemann, S. and U.J. Schmidt, 2017: Reducing Meat Consumption in Developed and Transition Countries to Counter Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss: A Review of Influence Factors. Reg. Environ. Change, 17(5) , 1261–1277, doi:10.1007/s10113-016-1057-5.

Strambo, C. and A.C.G. Espinosa, 2020: Extraction and Development: Fossil Fuel Production Narratives and Counternarratives in Colombia. Clim. Policy, 20(8) , 931–948, doi:10.1080/14693062.2020.1719810.

Stringer, L.C. et al., 2014: Advancing climate compatible development: lessons from southern Africa. Reg Env. Change, 14, 713–725, doi:10.1007/s10113-013-0533-4.

Sudbury, A.W. and E.B. Hutchinson, 2016: A Cost Analysis Of Amazon Prime Air Drone Delivery. J. Econ. Educ. , 16(1). https://libjournals.mtsu.edu/index.php/jfee/article/view/1512 (Accessed August 3, 2021)

Sugiawan, Y., R. Kurniawan, and S. Managi, 2019: Are carbon dioxide emission reductions compatible with sustainable well-being?Appl. Energy, 242 (December 2018), 1–11, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.03.113.

Sullivan, R., 2017: Corporate responses to climate change: achieving emissions reduction through regulation, self-regulation and economic incentives. 1st ed. Routledge, Abingdon, UK, 27 pp.

Sunny, N., N. Mac Dowell, and N. Shah, 2020: What is needed to deliver carbon-neutral heat using hydrogen and CCS?Energy Environ. Sci. , 13(11) , 4204–4224, doi:10.1039/D0EE02016H.

Sussman, R., R. Gifford, and W. Abrahamse, 2016: Social Mobilization: How to Encourage Action on Climate Change. Pacific Instittue for Climate Solutions, Victoria, BC, Canada, 20 pphttp://www.pics.uvic.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/FINAL (Accessed August 5, 2021).

Swilling, M., J. Musango, and J. Wakeford, 2016: Developmental states and sustainability transitions: Prospects of a just Transition in South Africa. J. Environ. Policy Plan. , 18(5) , 650–672, doi:10.1080/1523908X.2015.1107716.

Swyngedouw, E., 2010: Apocalypse Forever?Theory, Cult. Soc. , 27(2–3) , 213–232, doi:10.1177/0263276409358728.

Swyngedouw, E., 2011: Depoliticized Environments: The End of Nature, Climate Change and the Post-Political Condition. R. Inst. Philos. Suppl. , 69, 253–274, doi:10.1017/S1358246111000300.

Taconet, N., C. Guivarch, and A. Pottier, 2021: Social Cost of Carbon Under Stochastic Tipping Points. Environ. Resour. Econ. , 78 (4), 709–737, doi:10.1007/s10640-021-00549-x.

Tanner, T., and J. Allouche, 2011: Towards a New Political Economy of Climate Change and Development. IDS Bull. , 42(3) , 1–14, doi:10.1111/j.1759-5436.2011.00217.x.

TCFD, 2018: Task Force on Financial Disclosures: Status Report . Financial Stability Board,Basel, Switzerland, 116 pp.

Thackeray, S.J. et al., 2020: Civil disobedience movements such as School Strike for the Climate are raising public awareness of the climate change emergency. Glob. Change Biol. , 26(3) , 1042–1044, doi:10.1111/gcb.14978.

Thornbush, M., O. Golubchikov, and S. Bouzarovski, 2013: Sustainable cities targeted by combined mitigation–adaptation efforts for future-proofing. Sustain. Cities Soc. , 9, 1–9, doi:10.1016/j.scs.2013.01.003.

Thornton, T.F., and C. Comberti, 2017: Synergies and trade-offs between adaptation, mitigation and development. Clim. Change, 140(1) , 5–18, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0884-3.

Tian, X., F. Bai, J. Jia, Y. Liu, and F. Shi, 2019: Realizing low-carbon development in a developing and industrializing region: Impacts of industrial structure change on CO2 emissions in southwest China. J. Environ. Manage. , 233, 728–738, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.11.078.

Tol, R.S.J., 2018: The Economic Impacts of Climate Change. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy, 12(1) , 4–25, doi:10.1093/reep/rex027.

Tompkins, E.L. et al., 2013: An investigation of the evidence of benefits from climate compatible development. Sustainability Research Institute, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK, 31 pp.

Torralba, M., N. Fagerholm, P.J. Burgess, G. Moreno, and T. Plieninger, 2016: Do European agroforestry systems enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services? A meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. , 230, 150–161, doi:10.1016/j.agee.2016.06.002.

Tosam, M.J. and R.A. Mbih, 2015: Climate change, health, and sustainable development in Africa. Environ. Dev. Sustainability, 17(4) , 787–800, doi:10.1007/s10668-014-9575-0.

Tschakert, P. and L. Olsson, 2005: Post-2012 climate action in the broad framework of sustainable development policies: the role of the EU. Clim. Policy, 5(3) , 329–348, doi:10.1080/14693062.2005.9685561.

Tukker, A. and E. Dietzenbacher, 2013: Global Multiregional Input–Output Frameworks: An Introduction and Outlook. Econ. Syst. Res. , 25(1) , 1–19, doi:10.1080/09535314.2012.761179.

Tulkens, H., 2019: Economics, Game Theory and International Environmental Agreements. World Scientific, Singapore, 432 pp.

Turhan, E., B. Özkaynak, and C.İ. Aydın, 2019: Coal, ash, and other tales: The making and remaking of the anti-coal movement in Aliağa, Turkey. In: Transforming Socio-Natures in Turkey: Landscapes, State and Environmental Movements, Taylor and Francis, Abingdon, UK, pp. 166–186.

Turnheim, B. et al., 2015: Evaluating sustainability transitions pathways: Bridging analytical approaches to address governance challenges. Glob. Environ. Change, 35, 239–253, doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2015.08.010.

Turnheim, B., P. Kivimaa, and F. Berkhout, 2018: Innovating Climate Governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 262 pp.

UN DESA, 2021: The Sustainable Development Goals Report . The UN New York, NY, USA, 68pphttps://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2021/.

UNEP, 2018a: Emissions Gap Report 2018. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya., 112 pp

UNEP, 2018b: Inclusive wealth report 2018: measuring progress towards sustainability. Nairobi, Kenya, 14 pp.

UNEP, 2020: Global Climate Litigation Report 2020 Status Review. Nairobi, Kenya, pp 52.

UNFCCC, 1992: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Rio de Janiero, Brazil.

UNFCCC, 2015: Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Paris, France.

UNFCCC, 2018a: Talanoa Call for Action by the Presidents of COP23 and COP24. Katowice, Poland. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/Talanoa Callfor Action.pdf .

UNFCCC, 2018b: Silesia Declaration: Solidarity and Just Transition, Katowice, poland.

UNHRC, 2018: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment . New York, NY, USA, 22 pp. https://undocs.org/en/A/HRC/37/59 (Accessed June 22, 2021).

Unruh, G.C., 2000: Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy, 28(12) , 817–830, doi:10.1016/S0301-4215(00)00070-7.

Urpelainen, J. and T. Van de Graaf, 2018: United States non-cooperation and the Paris agreement. Clim. Policy, 18(7) , 839–851, doi:10.1080/14693062.2017.1406843.

Vadén, T. et al., 2020: Decoupling for ecological sustainability: A categorisation and review of research literature. Environ. Sci. Policy, 112, 236–244, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2020.06.016.

van den Berg, N.J. et al., 2019: Improved modelling of lifestyle changes in Integrated Assessment Models: Cross-disciplinary insights from methodologies and theories. Energy Strateg. Rev. , 26, 100420, doi:10.1016/j.esr.2019.100420.

van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. et al., 2020: A dual-track transition to global carbon pricing. Clim. Policy, 20(9) , 1057–1069, doi:10.1080/14693062.2020.1797618.

van den Bijgaart, I., R. Gerlagh, and M. Liski, 2016: A simple formula for the social cost of carbon. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. , 77, 75–94, doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2016.01.005.

van der Heijden, J., 2018: From leaders to majority: a frontrunner paradox in built-environment climate governance experimentation. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. , 61(8) , 1383–1401, doi:10.1080/09640568.2017.1350147.

van der Ploeg, F., and A. Rezai, 2019: Simple Rules for Climate Policy and Integrated Assessment. Environ. Resour. Econ. , 72(1) , 77–108, doi:10.1007/s10640-018-0280-6.

van Vuuren, D.P. et al., 2011: The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Clim. Change, 109(1–2) , 5–31, doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z.

van Vuuren, D.P. et al., 2014: A new scenario framework for Climate Change Research: scenario matrix architecture. Clim. Change, 122(3) , 373–386, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0906-1.

van Vuuren, D.P. et al., 2017: The Shared Socio-economic Pathways: Trajectories for human development and global environmental change. Glob. Environ. Change, 42, 148–152, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.10.009.

van Vuuren, D.P. et al., 2018: Alternative pathways to the 1.5°C target reduce the need for negative emission technologies. Nat. Clim. Change, 8(5) , 391–397, doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0119-8.

Van Vuuren, D.P. et al., 2019: Integrated scenarios to support analysis of the food–energy–water nexus. Nat. Sustain. , 2(12) , 1132–1141, doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0418-8.

Vartiainen, E., G. Masson, C. Breyer, D. Moser, and E. Román Medina, 2020: Impact of weighted average cost of capital, capital expenditure, and other parameters on future utility‐scale PV levelised cost of electricity. Prog. Photovoltaics Res. Appl. , 28(6) , 439–453, doi:10.1002/pip.3189.

Verplanken, B. and L. Whitmarsh, 2021: Habit and Climate Change. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. , 42, 42–46, doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.02.020.

Victor, D.G., 2011: Global Warming Gridlock: Creating More Effective Strategies for Protecting the Planet . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 358 pp.

Vogt-Schilb, A., G. Meunier, and S. Hallegatte, 2018: When starting with the most expensive option makes sense: Optimal timing, cost and sectoral allocation of abatement investment. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. , 88, 210–233, doi:10.1016/J.JEEM.2017.12.001.

Voituriez, T., W. Yao, and M.L. Larsen, 2019: Revising the ‘host country standard’’ principle: a step for China to align its overseas investment with the Paris Agreement.’Clim. Policy, 19(10) , 1205–1210, doi:10.1080/14693062.2019.1650702.

Walker, C., 2020: Uneven solidarity: the school strikes for climate in global and intergenerational perspective. Sustain. Earth, 3(1) , 5, doi:10.1186/s42055-020-00024-3.

Walton, M., 2014: Applying complexity theory: A review to inform evaluation design. Eval. Program Plann. , 45, 119–126, doi:10.1016/J.EVALPROGPLAN.2014.04.002.

Wamsler, C. and S. Pauleit, 2016: Making headway in climate policy mainstreaming and ecosystem-based adaptation: two pioneering countries, different pathways, one goal. Clim. Change, 137(1–2) , 71–87, doi:10.1007/s10584-016-1660-y.

Wang, L., L. Zhao, G. Mao, J. Zuo, and H. Du, 2017: Way to accomplish low carbon development transformation: A bibliometric analysis during 1995–2014. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. , 68, 57–69, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2016.08.021.

Wanger, T.C., 2011: The Lithium future-resources, recycling, and the environment. Conserv. Lett. , 4(3) , 202–206, doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00166.x.

Wapner, P.K. and H. Elver, 2017: Reimagining climate change. 1st ed. Routledge, Abingdon, UK, 198 pp.

Warde, A., 2017: Sustainable Consumption: Practices, Habits and Politics. In: Consumption: A Sociological Analysis[Warde, A. (ed.)]. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London, UK, pp. 181–204.

Warlenius, R., 2018: Decolonizing the Atmosphere: The Climate Justice Movement on Climate Debt. J. Environ. Dev. , 27(2) , 131–155, doi:10.1177/1070496517744593.

Weber, E.U., 2015: Climate Change Demands Behavioral Change: What Are the Challenges?Soc. Res. , 82(3) , 561–580.

Weber, E.U., 2016: What shapes perceptions of climate change? New research since 2010. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change, 7(1) , 125–134, doi:10.1002/wcc.377.

WEF, 2019: The Global Risks Report 2019, 14th Edition. Insight Report. World Economic Forum (WEF), Geneva, Switzerland, 80 pp.

Weikmans, R. and J.T. Roberts, 2019: The international climate finance accounting muddle: is there hope on the horizon?Clim. Dev. , 11(2) , 97–111, doi:10.1080/17565529.2017.1410087.

Weitzman, M.L., 1994: On the “environmental” discount rate. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. , 26(2) , 200–209, doi:10.1006/jeem.1994.1012.

Weitzman, M.L., 2001: Gamma discounting. Am. Econ. Rev. , 91(1) , 260–271, doi:10.1257/aer.91.1.260.

Weitzman, M. L., 2009: On Modeling and Interpreting the Economics of Catastrophic Climate Change. Rev. Econ. Stat. , 91 (1), 1–19, doi:10.1162/rest.91.1.1.

Weitzman, M.L., 2011: Fat-tailed uncertainty in the economics of catastrophic climate change. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy, 5(2) , 275–292, doi:10.1093/reep/rer006.

Wells, P. and P. Nieuwenhuis, 2012: Transition failure: Understanding continuity in the automotive industry. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 79(9) , 1681–1692, doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2012.06.008.

Westman, L. and V.C. Broto, 2018: Climate governance through partnerships: A study of 150 urban initiatives in China. Glob. Environ. Change, 50, 212–221, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.04.008.

Weyant, J., 2017: Some Contributions of Integrated Assessment Models of Global Climate Change. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy, 11 (1), 115–137, doi:10.1093/reep/rew018.

Whitehead, M., 2013: Neoliberal Urban Environmentalism and the Adaptive City: Towards a Critical Urban Theory and Climate Change. Urban Stud. , 50(7) , 1348–1367, doi:10.1177/0042098013480965.

Whitmarsh, L., W. Poortinga, and S. Capstick, 2021: Behaviour Change to Address Climate Change. Curr. Opin. Psychol. , 42, 76–81, doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.04.002.

Widerberg, O. and P. Pattberg, 2017: Accountability Challenges in the Transnational Regime Complex for Climate Change. Rev. Policy Res. , 34(1) , 68–87, doi:10.1111/ropr.12217.

Wiedmann, T. and M. Lenzen, 2018: Environmental and social footprints of international trade. Nat. Geosci. , 11(5) , 314–321, doi:10.1038/s41561-018-0113-9.

Wilhite, H., 2016: The political economy of low carbon transformation: breaking the habits of capitalism. Routledge, Abingdon, UK, 66 pp.

Willett, W. et al., 2019: Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet , 393(10170) , 447–492, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4.

Williamson, O.E., 2000: The New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking Ahead. J. Econ. Lit. , 38(3) , 595–613, doi:10.1257/jel.38.3.595.

Winkler, H., 2020: Towards a theory of just transition: A neo-Gramscian understanding of how to shift development pathways to zero poverty and zero carbon. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. , 70, 101789, doi:10.1016/j.erss.2020.101789.

Winkler, H., T. Letete, and A. Marquard, 2013: Equitable access to sustainable development: operationalizing key criteria. Clim. Policy, 13(4) , 411–432, doi:10.1080/14693062.2013.777610.

Winkler, H. et al., 2018: Countries start to explain how their climate contributions are fair: more rigour needed. Int. Environ. Agreements Polit. Law Econ. , 18(1) , 99–115, doi:10.1007/s10784-017-9381-x.

Wittneben, B.B.F., C. Okereke, S.B. Banerjee, and D.L. Levy, 2012: Climate Change and the Emergence of New Organizational Landscapes. Organ. Stud. , 33(11) , 1431–1450, doi:10.1177/0170840612464612.

Woiwode, C., 2013: New Departures in Tackling Urban Climate Change: Transdisciplinarity for Social Transformation (a critical appraisal of the WBGU’s 2011 Report). Integr. Rev. , 9(2).

Wolfram, M., N. Frantzeskaki, and S. Maschmeyer, 2016: Cities, systems and sustainability: status and perspectives of research on urban transformations. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustainability, 22, 18–25, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.014.

Wood, G. et al., 2020a: The comparative institutional analysis of energy transitions. Socio-Economic Rev. , 18(1) , 257–294, doi:10.1093/ser/mwz026.

Wood, R. et al., 2020b: Beyond peak emission transfers: historical impacts of globalization and future impacts of climate policies on international emission transfers. Clim. Policy, 20(sup1) , S14–S27, doi:10.1080/14693062.2019.1619507.

World Bank, 2019: State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2019. World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 97 pp.

World Bank, 2020: GDP growth (annual %). World Bank national accounts data, Washington, DC, USA. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG (Accessed June 3, 2021).

Wright, C. and D. Nyberg, 2017: An inconvenient truth: How organizations translate climate change into business as usual. Acad. Manag. J. , 60(5) , 1633–1661, doi:10.5465/amj.2015.0718.

WTO, 2016: World Trade Statistical Review 2016. World Trade Organization (WTO), Geneva, Switzerland, 165 pp.

Wu, X., R.C. Nethery, M.B. Sabath, D. Braun, and F. Dominici, 2020: Air pollution and COVID-19 mortality in the United States: Strengths and limitations of an ecological regression analysis. Sci. Adv. , 6(45) , eabd4049, doi:10.1126/SCIADV.ABD4049.

Wüstemann, H. et al., 2017: Synergies and trade-offs between nature conservation and climate policy: Insights from the “Natural Capital Germany – TEEB DE” study. Ecosyst. Serv. , 24, 187–199, doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.008.

Xia, Q., H. Wang, X. Liu, and X. Pan, 2021: Drivers of global and national CO2 emissions changes 2000–2017. Clim. Policy, 21(5) , 604–615, doi:10.1080/14693062.2020.1864267.

Xiang, P., H. Zhang, L. Geng, K. Zhou, and Y. Wu, 2019: Individualist-collectivist differences in climate change inaction: The role of perceived intractability. Front. Psychol. , 10, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00187.

Yamahaki, C., A. V. Felsberg, A. C. Köberle, A. C. Gurgel, and J. Stewart-Richardson, 2022: Structural and specific barriers to the development of a green bond market in Brazil. J. Sustain. Financ. Invest. , 12 (2), 389–406, doi:10.1080/20430795.2020.1769985.

Yang, P. et al., 2018: Social cost of carbon under shared socioeconomic pathways. Glob. Environ. Change, 53, 225–232, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.10.001.

York, A.M., M.A. Janssen, and E. Ostrom, 2005: Incentives Affecting Land Use Decisions of Nonindustrial Private Forest Landowners. In: Handbook of Global Environmental Politics[Peter Dauvergne (eds)], Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, MA, USA, 560 pp.

Yuan, H., P. Zhou, and D. Zhou, 2011: What is Low-Carbon Development? A Conceptual Analysis. Energy Procedia, 5, 1706–1712, doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2011.03.290.

Yugo, M., and A. Soler, 2019: A look into the role of e-fuels in the transport system in Europe (2030-2050) (literature review). Concawe, Brussels, Belgium, 19 pp.

Zahar, A., 2017: A Bottom-Up Compliance Mechanism for the Paris Agreement. Chinese J. Environ. Law, 1(1) , 69–98, doi:10.1163/24686042-12340005.

Zhang, Y., Y. Li, K. Hubacek, X. Tian, and Z. Lu, 2019: Analysis of CO2 transfer processes involved in global trade based on ecological network analysis. Appl. Energy, 233–234, 576–583, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.10.051.

Zhenmin, L., and P. Espinosa, 2019: Tackling climate change to accelerate sustainable development. Nat. Clim. Change, 9(7), 494–496, doi:10.1038/s41558-019-0519-4.

Zhou, L., S. Gilbert, Y.E. Wang, M.M. Cabré, and K.P. Gallagher, 2018: Moving the Green Belt and Road Initiative: From Words to Actions. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA, 44 pp. https://www.wri.org/research/moving-green-belt-and-road-initiative-words-actions (Accessed August 2, 2021).

Zhou, P. and W. Wen, 2020: Carbon-constrained firm decisions: From business strategies to operations modeling. Eur. J. Oper. Res. , 281(1) , 1–15, doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2019.02.050.

Zou, C., Q. Zhao, G. Zhang, and B. Xiong, 2016: Energy revolution: From a fossil energy era to a new energy era. Nat. Gas Ind. B, 3(1) , 1–11, doi:10.1016/j.ngib.2016.02.001.

Zummo, L., E. Gargroetzi, and A. Garcia, 2020: Youth voice on climate change: using factor analysis to understand the intersection of science, politics, and emotion. Environ. Educ. Res. , 26(8) , 1207–1226, doi:10.1080/13504622.2020.1771288.