The science and politics of co-benefits in climate policy. Issue 57 (March 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Mayrhofer, Jan P.; Gupta, Joyeeta
• Is Part Of: Environmental science & policy. Issue 57(2016:Mar.)
• Page Start: 22
• Page End: 30
• Publication Date: 2016-03
• Subjects: Ancillary benefits -- Co-benefits -- Climate change -- Development -- Research; Environmental policy -- Periodicals; Environmental sciences -- Periodicals; Environnement -- Politique gouvernementale -- Périodiques; Sciences de l'environnement -- Périodiques; Environmental policy; Environmental sciences; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 363.70561
• DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.11.005
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1462-9011

Abstract

Highlights: We review the evolution of the co-benefits concept, its strengths and weaknesses. Co-benefits is an increasingly popular 'umbrella' concept in climate policy. Co-benefits has tremendous advocacy potential for climate policy. Co-benefits analysis is dominated by economic scholars which limits its reach. There is a need for interdisciplinary research on the co-benefits concept. Abstract: The co-benefits concept implies a 'win–win' strategy to address two or more goals with a single policy measure. There is much scholarly and policy attention paid to this concept as a way to avoid making trade-offs between developmental and environmental issues. However, there is no review paper that reviews the nature, evolution, strengths and limits of the co-benefits concept in relation to climate change. Hence, this review article addresses the question: What does the literature tell us about the definition, application and use of the co-benefits concept? Using a literature review approach, this article explains the evolution of the co-benefits concept and its strengths and weaknesses. We conclude that while the concept has tremendous advocacy potential in dealing with the problem that the costs and benefits of climate policy are temporally and spatially not aligned, its de facto potential is limited as mostly economists have engaged with this concept, and there is little trans-disciplinary work undertaken that also looks at the politics and institutional aspects of co-benefits. The article thus provides an impetus to rethink current approaches to studying co-benefits and points to the need for inter- and trans-disciplinary research drawing on economic, political and social sciences.