Advanced

EU Climate Policy after the Crisis

Skovgaard, Jakob LU (2014) In Environmental Politics 23(1). p.1-17
Abstract
In the period 2009–2011, Member States discussed whether the EU should

increase its emissions reduction target for 2020 beyond the existing 20%. This discussion has not resulted in any agreement, the different actors being deeply divided between those calling for a step-up to a higher target (for instance 30%) and those opposed to any kind of increase. The division can be seen as a result of a conflict between policy frames. The economic crisis has deepened the division between those who see climate-change policy as detrimental to growth and those seeing it as beneficial to growth. Whereas the latter group – including the UK and DG Climate Action – subscribe to the

green growth policy frame, the former – including Poland... (More)
In the period 2009–2011, Member States discussed whether the EU should

increase its emissions reduction target for 2020 beyond the existing 20%. This discussion has not resulted in any agreement, the different actors being deeply divided between those calling for a step-up to a higher target (for instance 30%) and those opposed to any kind of increase. The division can be seen as a result of a conflict between policy frames. The economic crisis has deepened the division between those who see climate-change policy as detrimental to growth and those seeing it as beneficial to growth. Whereas the latter group – including the UK and DG Climate Action – subscribe to the

green growth policy frame, the former – including Poland – subscribe to the ‘trade-off policy frame’. Many Member States have been internally divided between proponents and opponents of a step-up, often with environment ministries in the former camp and finance and economics ministries in the latter. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Climate change, European Union, policy frames, economic crisis, ecological modernisation
in
Environmental Politics
volume
23
issue
1
pages
1 - 17
publisher
Taylor & Francis
external identifiers
  • wos:000330825600001
  • scopus:84893767604
ISSN
0964-4016
DOI
10.1080/09644016.2013.818304
project
BECC
Leadership Abandoned? – Explaining the EU’s Position in the Global Climate Change Negotiations 2007-2010
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
494b65f9-4f74-416c-a50b-406317ebe3c7 (old id 4222900)
alternative location
http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/dPkEuZBMHnaaPUFZuFft/full#.U0ggXtx9zq8
date added to LUP
2014-01-10 11:33:29
date last changed
2017-10-29 03:19:01
@article{494b65f9-4f74-416c-a50b-406317ebe3c7,
  abstract     = {In the period 2009–2011, Member States discussed whether the EU should<br/><br>
increase its emissions reduction target for 2020 beyond the existing 20%. This discussion has not resulted in any agreement, the different actors being deeply divided between those calling for a step-up to a higher target (for instance 30%) and those opposed to any kind of increase. The division can be seen as a result of a conflict between policy frames. The economic crisis has deepened the division between those who see climate-change policy as detrimental to growth and those seeing it as beneficial to growth. Whereas the latter group – including the UK and DG Climate Action – subscribe to the<br/><br>
green growth policy frame, the former – including Poland – subscribe to the ‘trade-off policy frame’. Many Member States have been internally divided between proponents and opponents of a step-up, often with environment ministries in the former camp and finance and economics ministries in the latter.},
  author       = {Skovgaard, Jakob},
  issn         = {0964-4016},
  keyword      = {Climate change,European Union,policy frames,economic crisis,ecological modernisation},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {1},
  pages        = {1--17},
  publisher    = {Taylor & Francis},
  series       = {Environmental Politics},
  title        = {EU Climate Policy after the Crisis},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2013.818304},
  volume       = {23},
  year         = {2014},
}