Tim Rayner

@article{e10cbee39dd44869aaac28e9f50c3bfa,

title = {Can the climate change consensus hold up?},

author = {Andrew Jordan and Tim Rayner},

doi = {10.1111/j.2041-9066.2010.00029.x},

issn = {2041-9058},

year  = {2010},

date = {2010-01-01},

journal = {Political Insight},

volume = {1},

number = {2},

pages = {70–71},

abstract = {Ahead of November's international conference in Mexico, Andrew Jordan and Tim Rayner report on the re-emergence of climate change in British politics. The UK's major political parties all agree that climate change is man-made and requires urgent action. But will this cross-party consensus endure? Ahead of November's international conference in Mexico, Andrew Jordan and Tim Rayner report on the re-emergence of climate change in British politics.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{919e8a9846b648baafe97f3b7b210569,

title = {Navigating the dilemmas of climate policy in Europe: evidence from policy evaluation studies},

author = {Constanze Haug and Tim Rayner and Andrew Jordan and Roger Hildingsson and Johannes Stripple and Suvi Monni and Dave Huitema and Eric Massey and Harro Asselt and Frans Berkhout},

doi = {10.1007/s10584-009-9682-3},

issn = {0165-0009},

year  = {2010},

date = {2010-01-01},

journal = {Climatic Change},

volume = {101},

number = {3-4},

pages = {427–445},

publisher = {Springer},

abstract = {Climate change is widely recognised as a ‘wicked’ policy problem. Agreeing and implementing governance responses is proving extremely difficult. Policy makers in many jurisdictions now emphasise their ambition to govern using the best available evidence. One obvious source of such evidence is the evaluations of the performance of existing policies. But to what extent do these evaluations provide insights into the difficult dilemmas that governors typically encounter? We address this question by reviewing the content of 262 evaluation studies of European climate policies in the light of six kinds of dilemma found in the governance literature. We are interested in what these studies say about the performance of European climate policies and in their capacity to inform evidence-based policy-making. We find that the evaluations do arrive at common findings: that climate change is framed as a problem of market and/or state failure; that voluntary measures tend to be ineffective; that market-based instruments tend to be regressive; that EU-level policies have driven climate policies in the latecomer EU Member States; and that lack of monitoring and weak enforcement are major obstacles to effective policy implementation. However, we also conclude that the evidence base these studies represent is surprisingly weak for such a high profile area. There is too little systematic climate policy evaluation work in the EU to support systematic evidence-based policy making. This reduces the scope for sound policy making in the short run and is a constraint to policy learning in the longer term.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{800,

title = {Navigating the dilemmas of European Climate Policy. Evidence from Policy Evaluation Studies},

author = {C Haug and T Rayner and D Huitema and R Hildingsson and Jordan A and E Massey and S Monni and J Stripple and H van Asselt},

url = {http://www.springerlink.com/content/761887rn27n60173},

year  = {2009},

date = {2009-01-01},

journal = {Climatic Change},

abstract = {Abstract Climate change is widely recognised as a textquoteleftwickedtextquoteright policy problem. Agreeing and implementing governance responses is proving extremely difficult. Policy makers in many jurisdictions now emphasise their ambition to govern using the best available evidence. One obvious source of such evidence is the evaluations of the performance of existing policies. But to what extent do these evaluations provide insights into the difficult dilemmas that governors typically encounter? We address this question by reviewing the content of 262 evaluation studies of European climate policies in the light of six kinds of dilemma found in the governance literature. We are interested in what these studies say about the performance of European climate policies and in their capacity to inform evidence-based policy-making. We find that the evaluations do arrive at common findings: that climate change is framed as a problem of market and/or state failure; that voluntary measures tend to be ineffective; that market-based instruments tend to be regressive; that EU-level policies have driven climate policies in the latecomer EU Member States; and that lack of monitoring and weak enforcement are major obstacles to effective policy implementation. However, we also conclude that the evidence base these studies represent is surprisingly weak for such a high profile area. There is too little systematic climate policy evaluation work in the EU to support systematic evidence-based policy making. This reduces the scope for sound policy making in the short run and is a constraint to policy learning in the longer term.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{2be55555290547eba2a0577ec4c38146,

title = {'It's demand, stupid': The failure and future of integrating climate change concerns into UK transport policy},

author = {Tim Rayner and Duncan Russel and Irene Lorenzoni},

doi = {10.1057/bp.2008.9},

issn = {1746-918X},

year  = {2008},

date = {2008-09-01},

journal = {British Politics},

volume = {3},

number = {3},

pages = {373–389},

publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.},

abstract = {Since 1997, successive Labour Governments have prioritised action on climate change. The United Kingdom is commonly perceived to be an international leader in terms of its global diplomatic efforts and, to a lesser extent, its domestic policy response. However, the UK's carbon dioxide emissions from the transport and housing sectors are increasing. In this paper, we focus on the transport sector and examine the extent to which policies have encouraged decarbonisation, and the underlying reasons behind their relative success or failure. Despite initial good intentions, policies aimed at improved efficiency, encouragement of less polluting modes of transport and reductions in demand have fallen short. Underlying this failure, we argue that the transport sector's traditional prioritising of the immediate economic implications of policy and the government's fear of being seen to impinge upon personal mobility have resulted in too strong a reliance on technological solutions rather than measures that seek to curb demand through behavioural change. We conclude by arguing that unless demand for carbon intensive forms of transport is reduced, the government will struggle to meet its increasingly ambitious carbon dioxide reduction targets, but that important new legislative initiatives at national and EU level offer chances for a more concerted approach.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{1180,

title = {Ittextquoterights demand stupid: the failure and future of integrating climate change concerns into UK transport policy},

author = {T Rayner and D Russel and I Lorenzoni},

year  = {2008},

date = {2008-01-01},

journal = {British Politics},

volume = {3},

pages = {373-389},

chapter = {373},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{8d0055d3287c4b8cabd9c07e24758c12b,

title = {Contested framings of greenhouse gas removal and its feasibility: social and political dimensions},

author = {Laurie Waller and Tim Rayner and Jason Chilvers and Clair Gough and Irene Lorenzoni and Andrew Jordan and Naomi Vaughan},

doi = {10.1002/wcc.649},

issn = {1757-7780},

journal = {Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change},

volume = {11},

number = {4},

pages = {1–17},

publisher = {John Wiley & Sons Ltd},

abstract = {Prospective approaches for large-scale greenhouse gas removal (GGR) are now central to the post-2020 international commitment to pursue efforts to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5°C. However, the feasibility of large-scale GGR has been repeatedly questioned. Most systematic analyses focus only on the physical, technical, and economic challenges of deploying it at scale. However, social and political dimensions will be just as important, if not more so, to how possible futures play out. We conduct one of the first reviews of the international peer-reviewed literature pertaining to the social and political dimensions of large-scale GGR, with a specific focus on two predominant approaches: Biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and afforestation/reforestation (AR). Our analysis of 78 studies proposes two important insights. First, it shows how six key social and political dimensions of GGR feasibility–namely economics and incentives; innovation; societal engagement; governance; complexity and uncertainty; and ethics, equity, and justice–are identifiable and are emphasized to varying degrees in the literature. Second, there are three contested ways in which BECCS and AR and their feasibility are being framed in the literature: (a) a techno-economic framing; (b) a social and political acceptability framing; and (c) a responsible development framing. We suggest this third frame will, and indeed should, become increasingly pertinent to the assessment, innovation, and governance of climate futures.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}