English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The number of emission trading and carbon taxation schemes implemented has grown rapidly over the past decade. Together, they cover approximately 16% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Although more than two-thirds of global GHG emissions are related to household consumption, approaches that directly target households, such as personal carbon trading (PCT), do not play a role in the fight against climate change. This is especially puzzling as measures taken so far are not sufficient to reach the 2 °C target. One clue to solving this puzzle comes from political science in the form of the multiple streams approach, which defines criteria that a policy proposal must meet to become part of the political agenda. Based on these criteria, this article conducts a systematic review on PCT to clarify why PCT does not play a role in the reduction of GHG emissions. The results show that there are three main problems with the PCT proposal. First, scholars often criticize the set-up costs as well as the running costs of such a system. Second, there is no clear consensus within the research community on public acceptance of PCT. Third, it is still unclear whether politicians are receptive to PCT or not.

Personal Carbon Trading—Lost in the Policy Primeval Soup?