Home  ›  Environmental Impact of Dietary Change a Systematic Review

Environmental Impact of Dietary Change a Systematic Review

Written By Monday, April 18, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Abstract

The literature evaluating the technical and socioeconomic outcomes of policy instruments used to back up the transition to depression-carbon economies is neither easily accessible nor comparable and often provides alien results. We develop and implement a framework to systematically review and synthesize the impact of ten types of decarbonization policy instruments on vii technical and socioeconomic outcomes. Our systematic review shows that the selected types of regulatory and economic and fiscal instruments are generally associated with positive impacts on environmental, technological and innovation outcomes. Several instruments are oftentimes associated with short-term negative impacts on competitiveness and distributional outcomes. We talk over how these trade-offs can be reduced or transformed into co-benefits by designing research and development and government procurement, deployment policies, carbon pricing and trading. Nosotros evidence how specific design features can promote competitiveness and reduce negative distributional impacts, peculiarly for small firms. An online interactive Decarbonisation Policy Evaluation Tool allows further assay of the evidence.

Information availability

The details of the written report blueprint, all data and data compiled for this research and the procedures for their analysis are detailed in this published commodity and its Supplementary Information files. The datasets with the coding of the prove generated during this report (including those available in the Supplementary Data) are bachelor from the corresponding author upon asking. The coded evidence tin also be accessed free of charge through the online 'Decarbonisation Policy Evaluation Tool' (http://dpet.innopaths.eu/#/). This tool allows the reader to explore additional research questions or unlike aspects of the evidence. This tool includes diverse functionalities, including (one) allowing the user to filter dissimilar evidence according to the research method, (2) weighing the evidence using weights specified by the user, (3) filtering past policy instrument or event and (4) reading the systematic coding of the papers forth unlike categories, including jurisdiction, time period, boosted details regarding the information and research methods, the sector and so on. Source data are provided with this newspaper.

References

  1. IPCC Special Written report on Global Warming of 1.five °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (WMO, 2018).

  2. van Soest, H. L. et al. Early action on Paris Agreement allows for more time to change free energy systems. Climatic Change 144, 165–179 (2017).

    Google Scholar

  3. Robiou du Pont, Y. & Meinshausen, M. Warming assessment of the bottom-upward Paris Agreement emissions pledges. Nat. Commun. 9, 4810 (2018).

    Google Scholar

  4. Anadón, 50. D. Missions-oriented RD&D institutions in energy between 2000 and 2010: a comparative analysis of China, the United Kingdom, and the United states of america. Res. Policy 41, 1742–1756 (2012).

    Google Scholar

  5. Breetz, H., Mildenberger, Thou. & Stokes, L. The political logics of clean energy transitions. Bus. Polit. 20, 492–522 (2018).

    Google Scholar

  6. Schmidt, T. Due south. & Sewerin, S. Technology as a driver of climate and energy politics. Nat. Energy 2, 17084 (2017).

    Google Scholar

  7. Zhang, Y., Smith, S. J., Bowden, J. H., Adelman, Z. & Westward, J. J. Co-benefits of global, domestic, and sectoral greenhouse gas mitigation for US air quality and man health in 2050. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 114033 (2017).

    Google Scholar

  8. A Clean Planet for All—A European Strategic Long-Term Vision for a Prosperous, Modern, Competitive and Climate Neutral Economic system (European Committee, 2018).

  9. The European Light-green Deal Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The European Quango, The Council, The European Economic and Social Commission and The Commission of the Regions (European Commission, 2019).

  10. Stokes, L. C. & Warshaw, C. Renewable energy policy design and framing influence public support in the United States. Nat. Free energy 2, 17107 (2017).

    Google Scholar

  11. Ansolabehere, S. & Konisky, D. Thousand. Cheap and Clean: How Americans Think most Energy in the Age of Global Warming (MIT Press, 2014).

  12. Deng, H.-M., Liang, Q.-M., Liu, L.-J. & Anadon, Fifty. D. Co-benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation: a review and classification by blazon, mitigation sector, and geography. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 123001 (2017).

    Google Scholar

  13. Haddaway, N. R. & Pullin, A. S. The policy role of systematic reviews: past, present and future. Springer Sci. Rev. two, 179–183 (2014).

    Google Scholar

  14. Brannlund, R., Ghalwash, T. & Nordstrom, J. Increased energy efficiency and the rebound issue: effects on consumption and emissions. Energy Econ. 29, ane–17 (2007).

    Google Scholar

  15. Fischer, C. & Newell, R. Thou. Environmental and technology policies for climate mitigation. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 55, 142–162 (2008).

    Google Scholar

  16. Anger, N., Böhringer, C. & Löschel, A. Paying the piper and calling the tune?: A meta-regression analysis of the double-dividend hypothesis. Ecol. Econ. 69, 1495–1502 (2010).

    Google Scholar

  17. Scrimgeour, F., Oxley, L. & Fatai, K. Reducing carbon emissions? The relative effectiveness of dissimilar types of environmental tax: the case of New Zealand. Environ. Model. Softw. 20, 1439–1448 (2005).

    Google Scholar

  18. Allan, M., Lecca, P., McGregor, P. & Swales, K. The economical and environmental affect of a carbon revenue enhancement for Scotland: a computable general equilibrium analysis. Ecol. Econ. 100, forty–l (2014).

    Google Scholar

  19. Environmental Tax Statistics—Detailed Analysis (Eurostat, 2020); https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/alphabetize.php/Environmental_tax_statistics_-_detailed_analysis

  20. Costantini, Five. & Mazzanti, M. On the green and innovative side of trade competitiveness? The touch of environmental policies and innovation on Eu exports. Res. Policy 41, 132–153 (2012).

    Google Scholar

  21. Criscuolo, C. & Menon, C. Environmental policies and gamble finance in the green sector: cantankerous-state evidence. Energy Policy 83, 38–56 (2015).

    Google Scholar

  22. Howell, S. T. Financing Innovation: evidence from R&D grants. Am. Econ. Rev. 107, 1136–1164 (2017).

    Google Scholar

  23. Oruezabala, M. & Rico, J.-C. The impact of sustainable public procurement on supplier management—the example of French public hospitals. Ind. Mark. Manage. 41, 573–580 (2012).

    Google Scholar

  24. Spyridaki, N.-A., Banaka, S. & Flamos, A. Evaluating public policy instruments in the Greek building sector. Energy Policy 88, 528–543 (2016).

    Google Scholar

  25. Collection of Statistical Information on Light-green Public Procurement in the Eu Report on data collection results (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2009).

  26. del Río, P. & Linares, P. Dorsum to the future? Rethinking auctions for renewable electricity back up. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 35, 42–56 (2014).

    Google Scholar

  27. Wigand, F., Förste, S., Amazo, A. & Tiedemann, S. Auctions for Renewable Support: Lessons Learnt from International Experiences Report D4.ii (Horizon 2020 Framework, 2016).

  28. Oikonomou, 5. & Mundaca, L. Tradable white certificate schemes: what can we learn from tradable green document schemes? Free energy Effic. one, 211–232 (2008).

    Google Scholar

  29. Gupta, South. One thousand. & Purohit, P. Renewable energy certificate mechanism in Bharat: a preliminary assessment. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 22, 380–392 (2013).

    Google Scholar

  30. Klenert, D. et al. Making carbon pricing work for citizens. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 669–677 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar

  31. Rentschler, J., Bleischwitz, R. & Flachenecker, F. in F ossil Fuel Subsidy Reforms. A Guide to Economic and Political Complication (ed. Rentschler, J.) 154–179 (Routledge, 2018).

  32. del Río, P. & Gual, M. A. An integrated assessment of the feed-in tariff organisation in Espana. Energy Policy 35, 994–1012 (2007).

    Google Scholar

  33. Frondel, Grand., Ritter, North., Schmidt, C. 1000. & Vance, C. Economic impacts from the promotion of renewable energy technologies: the German experience. Energy Policy 38, 4048–4056 (2010).

    Google Scholar

  34. Menanteau, P., Finon, D. & Lamy, G.-Fifty. Prices versus quantities: choosing policies for promoting the development of renewable energy. Free energy Policy 31, 799–812 (2003).

    Google Scholar

  35. Jacobsson, Southward. et al. EU renewable energy back up policy: faith or facts? Energy Policy 37, 2143–2146 (2009).

    Google Scholar

  36. del Río, P. et al. A techno-economic analysis of European union renewable electricity policy pathways in 2030. Free energy Policy 104, 484–493 (2017).

    Google Scholar

  37. Bean, P., Blazquez, J. & Nezamuddin, Northward. Assessing the cost of renewable free energy policy options—a Spanish current of air case study. Renew. Energy 103, 180–186 (2017).

    Google Scholar

  38. Callan, T., Lyons, South., Scott, S., Tol, R. S. J. & Verde, Due south. The distributional implications of a carbon revenue enhancement in Ireland. Free energy Policy 37, 407–412 (2009).

    Google Scholar

  39. Flues, F. & Thomas, A. The Distributional Effects of Free energy Taxes Taxation Working Newspaper (OECD, 2015); https://doi.org/10.1787/5js1qwkqqrbv-en

  40. Kerkhof, A. C., Moll, H. C., Drissen, Eastward. & Wilting, H. C. Taxation of multiple greenhouse gases and the furnishings on income distribution: a example study of the Netherlands. Ecol. Econ. 67, 318–326 (2008).

    Google Scholar

  41. Marion, J. & Muehlegger, Due east. Fuel tax incidence and supply conditions. J. Public Econ. 95, 1202–1212 (2011).

    Google Scholar

  42. Lees, E. Evaluation of the Energy Efficiency Commitment 2002–2005 (DECC, 2006).

  43. Giraudet, Fifty.-G. & Finon, D. European Experiences with White Certificate Obligations: A Critical Review of Existing Evaluations (HAL, 2015); https://doi.org/x.5547/2160-5890.4.1.lgi

  44. Joosen, S. Evaluation of the Dutch Free energy Performance Standard in the Residential and Services Sector (Ecofys, 2006).

  45. Pless, J. Are 'Complementary Policies' Substitutes? Bear witness from R&D Subsidies in the United kingdom (SSRN, 2018); https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3379256

  46. Cerutti, A. K., Ardente, F., Contu, S., Donno, D. & Beccaro, Thousand. Fifty. Modelling, assessing, and ranking public procurement options for a climate-friendly catering service. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 23, 95–115 (2018).

    Google Scholar

  47. Cerutti, A. M., Contu, S., Ardente, F., Donno, D. & Beccaro, G. L. Carbon footprint in light-green public procurement: policy evaluation from a example study in the food sector. Food Policy 58, 82–93 (2016).

    Google Scholar

  48. Testa, F., Iraldo, F., Frey, M. & Daddi, T. What factors influence the uptake of GPP (green public procurement) practices? New evidence from an Italian survey. Ecol. Econ. 82, 88–96 (2012).

    Google Scholar

  49. Testa, F., Iraldo, F. & Frey, M. The outcome of ecology regulation on firms' competitive operation: the case of the building & structure sector in some European union regions. J. Environ. Manage. 92, 2136–2144 (2011).

    Google Scholar

  50. Tarantini, Thou., Loprieno, A. D. & Porta, P. 50. A life cycle arroyo to light-green public procurement of building materials and elements: a instance report on windows. Energy 36, 2473–2482 (2011).

    Google Scholar

  51. Ghisetti, C. Demand-pull and ecology innovations: estimating the effects of innovative public procurement. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Modify 125, 178–187 (2017).

    Google Scholar

  52. GPP: Green Public Procurement: A Collection of Expert Practices (European Commission, 2012).

  53. Fagiani, R., Barquín, J. & Hakvoort, R. Take a chance-based assessment of the toll-efficiency and the effectivity of renewable free energy support schemes: certificate markets versus feed-in tariffs. Energy Policy 55, 648–661 (2013).

    Google Scholar

  54. Ang, One thousand., Röttgers, D. & Burli, P. The empirics of enabling investment and innovation in renewable energy. OECD Environment Working Papers No. 123 (OECD, 2017); https://doi.org/10.1787/67d221b8-en

  55. Sun, P. & Nie, P. A comparative study of feed-in tariff and renewable portfolio standard policy in renewable energy industry. Renew. Energy 74, 255–262 (2015).

    Google Scholar

  56. Johnstone, Northward., Haščič, I. & Popp, D. Renewable free energy policies and technological innovation: evidence based on patent counts. Environ. Resour. Econ. 45, 133–155 (2010).

    Google Scholar

  57. Schallenberg-Rodriguez, J. Renewable electricity support systems: are feed-in systems taking the atomic number 82? Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 76, 1422–1439 (2017).

    Google Scholar

  58. Butler, L. & Neuhoff, K. Comparison of feed-in tariff, quota and auction mechanisms to back up wind power development. Renew. Energy 33, 1854–1867 (2008).

    Google Scholar

  59. Renewable Energy Auctions: Analysing 2016 (IRENA, 2017).

  60. Eberhard, A. & Kåberger, T. Renewable energy auctions in Southward Africa outshine feed-in tariffs. Energy Sci. Eng. 4, 190–193 (2016).

    Google Scholar

  61. Lucas, H., del Rio, P. & Sokona, Due south. Design and assessment of renewable energy auctions in sub-Saharan Africa. IDS Bull. 48, five–vi (2017).

    Google Scholar

  62. Konidari, P. & Mavrakis, D. A multi-criteria evaluation method for climate change mitigation policy instruments. Energy Policy 35, 6235–6257 (2007).

    Google Scholar

  63. Martin, R., Muûls, M. & Wagner, U. The impact of the Eu emissions trading scheme on regulated firms: what is the evidence after x years? Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 10, 129–148 (2016).

    Google Scholar

  64. Andersen, G. South. Europe's experience with carbon-energy revenue enhancement. SAPIENS 3, 1–12 (2010).

    Google Scholar

  65. Bosquet, B. Ecology tax reform: does it work? A survey of the empirical evidence. Ecol. Econ. 34, 19–32 (2000).

    Google Scholar

  66. Conefrey, T., Fitz Gerald, J. D., Valeri, 50. K. & Tol, R. South. J. The impact of a carbon tax on economic growth and carbon dioxide emissions in Ireland. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 56, 934–952 (2013).

    Google Scholar

  67. Oueslati, W., Zipperer, 5., Rousselière, D. & Dimitropoulos, A. Free energy taxes, reforms and income inequality: an empirical cross-country assay. Int. Econ. 150, 80–95 (2017).

    Google Scholar

  68. Beck, M., Rivers, Northward., Wigle, R. & Yonezawa, H. Carbon taxation and revenue recycling: impacts on households in British Columbia. Resour. Free energy Econ. 41, forty–69 (2015).

    Google Scholar

  69. Köhler, J. et al. An calendar for sustainability transitions inquiry: state of the fine art and future directions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 31, 1–32 (2019).

    Google Scholar

  70. Perspectives on Transitions to Sustainability (EEA, 2018).

  71. The European Surroundings—State and Outlook 2020. Knowledge for Transition to a Sustainable Europe (EEA, 2019); https://doi.org/10.2800/96749

  72. Haddaway, Northward. R. & Macura, B. The office of reporting standards in producing robust literature reviews. Nat. Clim. Alter 8, 444–447 (2018).

    Google Scholar

  73. Gurevitch, J., Koricheva, J., Nakagawa, South. & Stewart, G. Meta-analysis and the scientific discipline of enquiry synthesis. Nature 555, 175–182 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar

  74. Siddaway, A. P., Forest, A. M. & Hedges, L. 5. How to exercise a systematic review: a best practise guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 70, 747–770 (2019).

    Google Scholar

  75. Borrás, South. & Edquist, C. The option of innovation policy instruments. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change lxxx, 1513–1522 (2013).

    Google Scholar

  76. Brujin, H. A. & Hufen, H. A. in Public Policy Instruments. Evaluating the Tools of Public Administration (eds Peters, B. G. & Van Nispen, F. M.) 11–32 (Edward Elgar, 1998).

  77. John, P. Making Policy Work (Routledge, 2010).

  78. Rogge, Thou. S. & Reichardt, K. Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: an extended concept and framework for analysis. Res. Policy 45, 132–147 (2016).

    Google Scholar

  79. Hood, C. C. & Margetts, H. Z. The Tools of Government in the Digital Age (Palgrave Macmillan, 2007).

  80. Linder, S. H. & Peters, B. Thousand. in Public Policy Instruments: Evaluating the Tools of Public Administration (eds Peters, B. G. & Van Nispen, F. K.) 33–45 (Edward Elgar, 1998).

  81. IEA/IRENA Policies and Measures Databases (IEA and IRENA, 2019); https://vipo.iea.org/policiesandmeasures/renewableenergy/

  82. Towards a Greener Economy: The Social Dimensions (ILO, 2011).

  83. Instrument Mixes for Environmental Policy (OECD, 2007).

  84. Renewable Energy in Latin America 2015: An Overview of Policies (IRENA, 2015).

  85. Renewable Energy Benefits: Measuring the Economics (IRENA, 2016).

  86. Neij, Fifty. & Åstrand, K. Outcome indicators for the evaluation of free energy policy instruments and technical change. Free energy Policy 34, 2662–2676 (2006).

    Google Scholar

  87. Denyer, D. & Tranfield, D. in The Sage handbook of organizational research methods (eds Buchanan, D.A. & Bryman, A.) 671–689 (Sage Publications Ltd, 2009).

  88. Herfindahl, O. C. Concentration in the steel industry. Dissertation, Columbia Univ. (1950).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project has received funding from the European Wedlock's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme nether grant understanding no. 730403. Nosotros thank all of the INNOPATHS partners for feedback during the development of the DPET online tool and this paper, and in particular S. Verde for the precious feedback and help with some of the systematic review coding also as Nice & Serious and P. Larkin for the online evolution of the DPET tool. C.P. and L.D.A. also acknowledge the interactions enabled by the Economics of Energy Innovation and System Transition (EEIST) projection—which is funded past the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) of the UK Government—during the last few months of this projection.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Politics and International Studies (POLIS), University of Cambridge, Cambridge, U.k.

    Cristina Peñasco

  2. Heart for Surround, Energy and Natural Resources Governance (C-EENRG), Department of Land Economic system, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Uk

    Cristina Peñasco & Laura Díaz Anadón

  3. Department of Law, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy

    Elena Verdolini

  4. RFF-CMCC European Institute of Environmental Economics (EIEE), Euro-Mediterranean Eye of ClimateChange (CMCC), Milan, Italian republic

    Elena Verdolini

Contributions

C.P., L.D.A. and Due east.Five. designed the systematic review. C.P. implemented the design of the systematic review, identifying the sample of papers included in the study. C.P., L.D.A. and E.V. coded the papers in the review, analysed the results and wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cristina Peñasco.

Ideals declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Climatic change thank you Andrew Jordan, William Lamb and Leah Stokes for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher'south note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended information

Extended Data Fig. i Aggregated cess of the impact of the ten policy instruments on the ecology effectiveness outcome.

The circles summarize the aggregated assessment from the systematic literature review. The outer circles stand for the number of positive impact (blue), no impact (grey) and negative impact (orange) evaluations by type of policy musical instrument. The inner circles represent the type of methodology that was used in the evaluations determining the different impacts. The grid pattern denotes controlled trial methodologies, the checkered pattern denotes quantitative methodologies, the striped pattern represents qualitative methodologies, and the dotted pattern represents theoretical literature and models and/or ex-ante evaluations. For a list of the environmental effectiveness consequence indicators included in the publications analysed, see Supplementary Fig. 2 in Supplementary Section I.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. ii Aggregated assessment of the affect of the ten policy instruments on the technological effectiveness outcome.

The circles summarize the aggregated assessment from the systematic literature review. The outer circles represent the number of positive bear on (blue), no bear on (grayness) and negative touch (orangish) evaluations by type of policy instrument. The inner circles represent the type of methodology that was used in the evaluations determining the unlike impacts. The checkered blueprint denotes quantitative methodologies, the striped pattern represents qualitative methodologies, and the dotted pattern represents theoretical literature and models and/or ex-ante evaluations. For a listing of the technological effectiveness outcome indicators included in the publications analysed, see Supplementary Fig. 2 in Supplementary Section I.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 3 Aggregated assessment of the impact of the ten policy instruments on the toll-related outcomes.

The circles summarize the aggregated assessment from the systematic literature review. The outer circles correspond the number of positive touch (bluish), no impact (grey) and negative touch on (orange) evaluations by type of policy instrument. The inner circles represent the type of methodology that was used in the evaluations determining the different impacts. The checkered pattern denotes quantitative methodologies, the striped design represents qualitative methodologies, and the dotted blueprint represents theoretical literature and models and/or ex-ante evaluations. For a list of the price-related outcome indicators included in the publications analysed, see Supplementary Fig. ii in Supplementary Department I.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 4 Aggregated assessment of the impact of the ten policy instruments on the innovation outcomes.

The circles summarize the aggregated assessment from the systematic literature review. The outer circles represent the number of positive affect (blue), no touch on (grey) and negative impact (orangish) evaluations by type of policy instrument. The inner circles represent the blazon of methodology that was used in the evaluations determining the unlike impacts. The checkered pattern denotes quantitative methodologies, the striped pattern represents qualitative methodologies, and the dotted design represents theoretical literature and models and/or ex-ante evaluations. For a list of the innovation outcome indicators included in the publications analysed, see Supplementary Fig. 2 in Supplementary Section I.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 5 Aggregated assessment of the touch of the ten policy instruments on the other social outcomes.

The circles summarize the aggregated assessment from the systematic literature review. The outer circles represent the number of positive impact (blue), no impact (gray) and negative touch on (orange) evaluations by type of policy instrument. The inner circles represent the type of methodology that was used in the evaluations determining the different impacts. The checkered pattern denotes quantitative methodologies, the striped design represents qualitative methodologies, and the dotted pattern represents theoretical literature and models and/or ex-ante evaluations. For a list of the other social outcome indicators included in the publications analysed, see Supplementary Fig. 2 in Supplementary Section I.

Source data

Supplementary information

Source information

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Peñasco, C., Anadón, L.D. & Verdolini, Eastward. Systematic review of the outcomes and trade-offs of x types of decarbonization policy instruments. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11, 257–265 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00971-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Appointment:

  • DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00971-x

ericksonthicale1951.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-00971-x

0 Response to "Environmental Impact of Dietary Change a Systematic Review"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel