Michael Mehling, Endre Tvinnereim

Carbon & Climate Law Review, Volume 12 (2018), Issue 1, Page 50 - 61

Carbon pricing is routinely presented as the most efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and therefore as an indispensable pillar of ambitious climate policy. For incremental emission reductions on the margin, this static perspective may be correct, expressing the ability of carbon pricing to identify and spur abatement options with the lowest cost. At the same time, meeting the 1.5°C target requires achievement of zero net emissions in the relatively near term, implying a need for full decarbonisation rather than marginal abatement. To date, there is only limited empirical evidence suggesting that carbon pricing has produced deep emission cuts. Emission reductions triggered by carbon taxes and emissions trading systems are typically modest or relate to a baseline rather than absolute levels, even in cases where price levels are relatively high. Consequently, we posit that deep decarbonisation in line with the 1.5°C target can only be ensured by drawing on a portfolio approach, in which carbon pricing operates alongside other instruments including regulation and legal mandates.

Michael Mehling

Carbon & Climate Law Review, Volume 11 (2017), Issue 1, Page 3 - 24

Following his surprise election, President Trump has translated several campaign promises into a relentless progression of executive measures. This article traces the first 100 days of his presidency as they relate to climate and energy policy, assessing the impact of personnel choices, his regulatory reform agenda, and his proposed budget blueprint, as well as executive or agency orders across various sectors. It also differentiates between the expected impact of federal policy choices and fundamental trends in the energy sector as well as the activist role of states and municipalities in shaping climate policy outcomes. Finally, the article discusses procedural constraints and judicial review as moderating forces, limiting the scale and speed with which the new president can overturn the climate legacy of his predecessor. In the end, the article argues that a retrospective of recent administrations reveals a cyclical pattern which both confines and perpetuates the alternating extremes of successive presidencies.

Michael Mehling

Carbon & Climate Law Review, Volume 10 (2016), Issue 4, Page 175 - 176

Michael Mehling

Carbon & Climate Law Review, Volume 11 (2017), Issue 1, Page 1 - 2

Camilla Bausch, Michael Mehling

Carbon & Climate Law Review, Volume 11 (2017), Issue 3, Page 179 - 183

Michael Mehling

Carbon & Climate Law Review, Volume 11 (2017), Issue 3, Page 177 - 178

Michael Mehling

Carbon & Climate Law Review, Volume 11 (2017), Issue 2, Page 88 - 89

Michael Mehling

Carbon & Climate Law Review, Volume 8 (2014), Issue 4, Page 237 - 237

Sonja Klinsky, Michael Mehling, Andreas Tuerk

Carbon & Climate Law Review, Volume 6 (2012), Issue 4, Page 291 - 305

Under pressure to abate greenhouse gas emissions without burdening their economies, several countries around the world have introduced emissions trading systems as a centerpiece of their climate change mitigation strategies. Drawing on the experiences with emissions trading made in Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific region, this article shows that considerable diversity can be observed across systems, providing valuable opportunities for comparison and policy learning. Individually, and in comparison, existing trading systems offer lessons that can be applied to the design and implementation of new systems – especially in emerging economies where carbon markets are currently under development, such as China – and to the improvement of already operating systems. Such lessons are identified in three different categories: the role of the political process and economic context; system design; and system implementation and operation.

Tobias Hausotter, Michael Mehling

Carbon & Climate Law Review, Volume 6 (2012), Issue 4, Page 408 - 413

I. Capacity building for emissions trading: Concept and priorities Several contributions to this issue of the Carbon & Climate Law Review have illustrated current efforts to introduce emissions trading systems in the developing world. Overall, this is a welcome trend, as it shows that carbon markets are successfully incentivizing more robust mitigation efforts in countries with the fastest growth in greenhouse gas emissions. Given that any meaningful action on climate change will necessitate allocation of scarce resources among many competing aims, the flexibility and efficiency gains offered by a marketbased approach may indeed be critical for any prospect of avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the global climate system. It is thus readily apparent that ensuring the integrity of these emissions trading systems will become vitally important far beyond the national boundaries of the countries that introduce them.