CO2 emissions are rising 
rapidly due to growing 
population and affluence
•	 Current	CO2	emissions	will	cause	major,	and	
perhaps	irreversible,	impacts.
•	 Getting	emissions	to	80%	of	current	levels	by	
2100	requires	reducing	emissions	by	1.8%	per	
year.
•	 But	emissions	are	increasing	by	2.4%	per	
year.
•	 Emissions	result	from	three	major	“drivers”	
identified	in	IPAT	(or	Kaya)	Identity:	(Ehrlich	
and	Holdren,	1971;	Kaya	and	Yokobori,	1997)
Impact =  
Population * Affluence * Technology
Population and affluence drive 
CO2 emissions but are not 
open for political discussion
•	 Global	GDP	of	3.1%	per	year	reflects	1.3%	
from	population	and	1.8%	from	affluence.
•	 Population	considered	as	inappropriate	for	
government	to	limit.
•	 Affluence	(income)	growth	considered	as	
undesirable	for	government	to	limit.
“Technological” solutions 
dominate debate but are 
not enough
•	 Technology	already	helps	reduce	emissions	
by	0.7%	per	year	but	this	is	not	enough.
•	 Stabilizing	emissions	growth	due	to	
population	and	affluence	requires	
technology	improvements	of	3.1%	per	year.
•	 Reducing	emissions	by	80%	of	current	levels	
by	2100	requires	another	1.8%	per	year,	a	
total	of	4.9%	per	year.
•	 High	and	sustained	technological	
improvements	are	unlikely.
Past	technological	improvements	go	unused	or	
have	“perverse”	effects:
•	 	Driving	55	vs.	75	mph	reduces	CO2	
emissions	and	gas	costs	by	20%.
•	 	The	“Paperless	Office”?	North	American	
paper	use	per	capita	has	grown	25%	since	
1981.
Political institutions: why 
they won’t work
•	 Knowledge:	Contested	whether	climate	
change	is	likely.	
•	 Norms:	Contested	whether	averting	climate	
change	is	desirable.
•	 Incentives:	large	costs	with	uncertain	and	
future	benefits.	Beneficiaries	are	from	other	
countries	and	future	generations.
•	 Strategic	interactions:	international	
cooperation	requires	cooperation	but	not	all	
states	are	concerned.
•	 Implementation:	monitoring	is	challenging	
and	sanctions	for	violations	are	unlikely	and	
ineffective.
Structural	disadvantages	of	political	institutions:
•	 Discourse	of	politics	is	interests	but	
addressing	climate	change	seems	to	run	
counter	to	our	interests.
•	 People	expect	democratic	governments	to	
reflect	their	values	not	influence	them.
Obstacles to International Cooperation on Climate Change
Ronald B. Mitchell with Kelly O’Brien
Value-based institutions: why 
they might work
Structural	advantages	of	value-based	institutions:
•	 Discourse	of	religion	and	other	value-based	
institutions	is	values	and	“right	and	wrong.”
•	 People	expect	religious	institutions	to	guide	
and	inform	their	values.
•	 People	sacrifice	more	and	are	more	altruistic	
in	value-based	institutions.
•	 Religions	do	and	can	influence	population	
and	consumption	choices.
Conclusions
•	 Technology	alone	will	not	be	enough	to	stop	
climate	change.
•	 Population	and	affluence	must	be	“in	the	
mix.”
•	 Political	institutions	are	unlikely	to	address	
population	and	affluence.
•	 Value-based	institutions	may	do	so	and	
deserve	more	research	attention.
Sources
Ehrlich,	P.R.,	Holdren,	J.P.,	1971.	Impact	of	
population	growth.	Science	171,	1212-1217.
Kaya,	Y.,	Yokobori,	K.,	1997.	Environment,	
energy,	and	economy:	strategies	for	
sustainable	development.	United	Nations	
University	Press,	Tokyo;	New	York.
-----
Ronald	B.	Mitchell	is	Professor	of	Political	
Science	and	Environmental	Studies	at	the	
University	of	Oregon.	
Kelly	O’Brien	is	Program	Coordinator	for	the	
Dissertations	Initiative	for	the	Advancement	
of	Climate	Change	Research	at	the	University	
of	Oregon.