ABSTRACT
In this last chapter the question is raised as to which form of climate instrumentation would be most feasible and effective for achieving the climate goals of Paris: Planning & Control or Institutionalist? No clear and convincing answer jumps off the page. Scores on mostly qualitative criteria diverge. Feasibility of instrumentation relates to the administrative efforts required, most likely greater for Planning & Control, crowding out other policy domains. Efficiency seems to favor the Institutionalist alternative over the longer term due to its dynamic mechanisms. Political feasibility yields a mixed picture. The Institutionalist option requires a deeper level of agreement, but then is easier to maintain, while Planning & Control requires consistent sets of policy decisions, continuously maintained. Political vulnerability may reduce overall effectiveness, due to action by specific interest groups regarding specific instruments targeting their domain. The burden of comprehensive regulation may be heavy for Planning & Control due to lack of support for the many interventions required, which are detrimental to legitimacy. The Institutionalist option may have an advantage in this regard, as decentralized, bottom-up developments can enhance greater legitimacy. An overall judgment, however, will very much depend on political-philosophical views regarding governance, and much less on climate policy issues. There seem to be no basic differences in this respect regarding newly developing countries. International agreements on binding emission reductions seem more cumbersome than a type of “climate tax club” which is open to all for joining -- the coalition of the willing.
