Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Regulating knowledge monopolies: the case of the IPCC

  • Published:
Climatic Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has a monopoly on the provision of climate policy advice at the international level and a strong market position in national policy advice. This may have been the intention of the founders of the IPCC. I argue that the IPCC has a natural monopoly, as a new entrant would have to invest time and effort over a longer period to perhaps match the reputation, trust, goodwill, and network of the IPCC. The IPCC is a not-for-profit organization, and it is run by nominal volunteers. It therefore cannot engage in the price-gouging that is typical of monopolies. However, the IPCC has certainly taken up tasks outside its mandate. The IPCC has been accused of haughtiness. Innovation is slow. Quality may have declined. And the IPCC may have used its power to hinder competitors. There are all things that monopolies tend to do, against the public interest. The IPCC would perform better if it were regulated by an independent body which audits the IPCC procedures and assesses its performance; if outside organizations would be allowed to bid for the production of reports and the provision of services under the IPCC brand; and if policy makers would encourage potential competitors to the IPCC.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Because greenhouse gas emission reduction is often (yet incorrectly) couched in terms of scientific necessity, opponents are led to attack the science and the scientific institutions. The debate was particularly vehement in the United Kingdom as the three main parties all called for stringent emission reduction, and the opposition was therefore unconstrained by (the prospect of) the responsibilities of government.

  2. The RAINS model, hosted at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (Alcamo et al. 1990).

  3. http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.htm

  4. IPCC authorship also offers opportunities to travel and earn per diems, which is particularly valuable to scholars from developing countries.

  5. Alternatively, one could see the IPCC as a club, and authorship as a club good. As the IPCC is the only significant club, this does not affect the reasoning below.

  6. Competitive firms and monopolies are thus aretaically and deontologically equivalent: Their motivation is the same and they respond in the same way to the same impulses. Their behaviour is different because their environment is different.

  7. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/

  8. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipcc-scholarship-programme/ipcc_scholarshipprogramme.html

  9. http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/meetings/CGCs/index.html

  10. http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session32/doc15_p32_report__cross_wg_mtg_cons_eval_uncert%20.pdf

  11. https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/supportingmaterial/uncertainty-guidance-note.pdf

  12. For example, (Barker et al. 2007) find only one peer-reviewed paper on the impact of climate policy on employment while (Patuelli et al. 2005) find 94 papers.

  13. This would not be a credible threat in the case of a natural monopoly and a benevolent regulator. It can be an effective threat if the monopolist is unsure about the true intentions of the regulator and the naturalness of the monopoly is debatable, as in the case of the IPCC.

  14. The Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium, http://www.iamconsortium.org/, is a front organization of the IPCC, at least if it comes to scenario development.

  15. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop3/07a01.pdf

  16. http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.htm

  17. The governance of the IPCC would be much improved if the IPCC Chair and Working Group Chairs would be removed from the IPCC Bureau to form a true executive; and the IPCC Bureau would be reformed as an independent board under a strong chair.

  18. For example, the review by the InterAcademy Council: http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/

  19. Note that the IPCC authors are nominated by governments. In a number of instances, governments have nominated people to the IPCC for their political colour rather than their expertise. The nomination process should be audited too, and the IPCC should have the right to appoint non-nominated authors too.

  20. http://dels-old.nas.edu/climatechange/

  21. This may also be explained by the poor quality of the Stern Review (Arrow 2007; Mendelsohn 2006; Nordhaus 2007; Weitzman 2007).

  22. A poor example is the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change http://www.nipccreport.org/, while the Copenhagen Consensus on Climate is of higher repute (Lomborg 2010)

  23. For example, the Wiley Interdisciplinary Review on Climate Change http://wires.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WiresJournal/wisId-WCC.html,the Encyclopedia of Earth http://www.eoearth.org/ and the Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems http://www.eolss.net

  24. This is based on a reading of Wikipedia entries in areas of or adjacent to my expertise. Wikipedia has better quality with regard to mathematics and economics than for climate change. I have given up editing Wikipedia on issues relating to climate change.

  25. See for example http://www.scholarpedia.org/ and http://www.scitopics.com/

References

  • Agrawala S (1998a) Context and Early Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Clim Change 39:605–620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawala S (1998b) Structural and Process History of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Clim Change 39:621–642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alcamo J, Shaw R, Hordijk L (eds) (1990) The RAINS Model of Acidification: Science and Strategies in Europe. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander WJR (2007) The IPCC: Structure, processes and politics climate change—The failure of science. Energy Environ 18(7–8):1073–1077

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow KJ (2007) Global Climate Change: A Challenge to Policy. Economists’ Voice 1–5.

  • BACC Author Team (2008) Assessment of Climate Change for the Baltic Sea Basin. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker T, Bashmakov I, Alharthi A, Amann M, Cifuentes L, Drexhage J, Duan M, Edenhofer O, Flannery BP, Grubb MJ, Hoogwijk M, Ibitoye FI, Jepma CJ, Pizer WA, Yamaji K (2007) Mitigation from a Cross-Sectoral Perspective. In: Metz B et al (eds) Climate Change 2007: Mitigation—Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 619–690

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett S (1994) Self-Enforcing International Environmental Agreements. Oxford Economic Papers 46:878–894

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumol WJ, Panzar JC, Willig RD (1982) Contestable Markets and the Theory of Industry Structure. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck S (2010) Moving beyond the linear model of expertise? IPCC and the test of adaptation. Regional Environmental Change. Ref Type: In Press

  • Berg S, Tschirhart J (1988) Natural Monopoly Regulation: Principles and Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosi M, Scott D, Spors F (2010) 10 Years of Experience in Carbon Finance: Insights from Working with the Kyoto Mechanisms, Working Paper 55484 ,World Bank, Washington

  • Bruce JP (1996) Purpose and Function of IPCC. Nature 379:108–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budescu DV, Broomell S, Por HH (2009) Improving communication of uncertainty in the reports of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Psychol Sci 20(3):299–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carraro C, Siniscalco D (1998) International Environmental Agreements: Incentives and Political Economy. Eur Econ Rev 42:561–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castells N, Funtowicz S (1997) Use of scientific inputs for environmental policy-making: The RAINS model and the sulfur protocols. Int J Environ Pollut 7(4):512–525

    Google Scholar 

  • Castles I, Henderson D (2003a) Economics, Emission Scenarios and the Work of the IPCC. Energy & Environment 14(4):415–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castles I, Henderson D (2003b) The IPCC Emission Scenarios: An Economic-Statistical Critique. Energy & Environment 14(2–3):159–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Courtney RS (1996) Purpose and Function of IPCC. Nature 379:109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson G (2008) The economic science fiction of climate change: A free-market perspective on the Stern Review and the IPCC. Econ Affairs 28(4):42–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson G (2009) Privatising climate policy. Econ Affairs 29(3):57–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dellink RB, Briner G, Clapp C (2010) Costs, Revenues and Effectiveness of the Copenhagen Accord Pledges for 2020, Environment Working Paper (2010)8 ,Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris

  • Economist (2003) The One-Handed Economist. The Economist

  • Economist (2011) A new row about the IPCC: A climate of conflict. Economist

  • Edwards PN, Schneider SH (2001) Self-Governance and Peer Review in Science-for-Policy: The Case of the IPCC Second Assessment Report. In: Miller CA, Edwards PN (eds) Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and Environmental Governance. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 219–246

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher BS, Nakicenovic N, Alfsen KH, Corfee-Morlot J, de la Chesnaye FC, Hourcade J-C, Jiang K, Kainuma M, la Rovere EL, Matysek A, Rana A, Riahi K, Richels RG, Rose S, van Vuuren DP, Warren RF (2007) Issues Related to Mitigation in the Long-Term Context. In: Metz B et al (eds) Climate Change 2007: Mitigation—Contribution of Working Group 3 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 169–250

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman M, Friedman RD (1980) Free to Choose. Harcourt, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1994) Uncertainty, Complexity and Post-Normal Science. Environ Toxicol Chem 13(12):1881–1885

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Girod B, Wiek A, Mieg H, Hulme M (2009) The evolution of the IPCC’s emissions scenarios. Environ Sci Pol 12(2):103–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godal O (2003) The IPCC’s Assessment of Multidisciplinary Issues: The Case of Greenhouse Gas Indices. Clim Change 58(3):243–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gough C, Castells-Cabre N, Funtowicz SO (1998) Integrated Assessment: An Emerging Methodology for Complex Issues. Environ Model Assess 3:19–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grubb MJ (1996) Purpose and Function of IPCC. Nature 379:108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruebler A, Nakicenovic N, Alcamo J, Davis G, Fenhann J, Hare B, Mori S, Pepper B, Pitcher HM, Riahi K, Rogner H-H, Lebre la Rovere E, Sankovski A, Schlesinger ME, Shukla PR, Swart RJ, Victor N, Jung TY (2004) Emissions Scenarios: A Final Response. Energy & Environment 15(1):11–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson D (2007) Unwarranted trust: A critique of the IPCC process. Energy Environ 18(7–8):909–928

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson D (2009) Climate change issues: A dissenting voice. Econ Affairs 29(3):87–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hordijk L (1991) Use of the RAINS Model in Acid Rains Negotiations in Europe. Environ Sci Technol 25(4):596–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hordijk L (1995) Integrated Assessment Models as a Basis for Air Pollution Negotiations. Water Air Soil Pollut 85:249–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hordijk L, Kroeze C (1997) Integrated Assessment Models for Acid Rain. Eur J Oper Res 102:405–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulme M (2010) The IPCC on Trial: Experimentation Continues. EnvironmentalResearchWeb

  • Hulme M, Mahony M (2010) Climate change: what do we know about the IPCC? Progress in Physical Geography

  • Kamada Y, Kominers SD (2010) Information can wreck cooperation: A counterpoint to Kandori (1992). Econ Lett 107(2):112–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karl TR, Melillo JM, Peterson TC (eds.) (2009) Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  • Kintisch E (2010) IPCC seeks ‘broader community engagement’ to correct errors. Science 327(5967):768–769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuik OJ, Brander L, Tol RSJ (2009) Marginal abatement costs of greenhouse gas emissions: A meta-analysis. Energy Policy 37(4):1395–1403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindzen RS (1997) Statement Concerning Global Warming. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Lomborg B (ed.) (2010) Smart Solutions to Climate Change-Comparing Costs and Benefits. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

  • McKitrick R (2010) Fix the IPCC Process. Financial Post

  • McMichael AJ, Campbell-Lendrum DH, Corvalán CF, Ebi KL, Githeko AK, Scheraga JD, and Woodward A (eds.) (2003) Climate change and human health—Risks and responses. World Health Organization, Geneva

  • Mendelsohn RO (2006) A Critique of the Stern Report. Regulation (Winter 2006–2007), 42–46.

  • Moss RH, Schneider SH (2000) Towards Consistent Assessment and Reporting of Uncertainties in the IPCC TAR. In: Pachauri RK, Taniguchi T (eds) Cross-Cutting Issues in the IPCC Third Assessment Report. Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss RH, Edmonds JA, Hibbard KA, Manning MR, Rose SK, van Vuuren DP, Carter TR, Emori S, Kainuma M, Kram T, Meehl GA, Mitchell JFB, Nakicenovic N, Riahi K, Smith SJ, Stouffer RJ, Thomson AM, Weyant JP, Wilbanks TJ (2010) The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature 463(7282):747–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakicenovic N, Swart RJ (eds.) (2001) IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  • Nature (2010) IPCC: Cherish it, tweak it or scrap it? Nature 463(7282):730–732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • New Scientist (2010) Let the sunlight in on climate change. New Sci 205(2745):5

    Google Scholar 

  • Nishioka S (2008) How did science and IPCC lead policy? Atomos 50(9):557–561

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus WD (2007) A Review of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. J Econ Lit 45(3):686–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nove A (1983) The Economics of Feasible Socialism. Unwin Hyman, Boston

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill BC (2000) The jury is still out on global warming potentials. Clim Change 44:427–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill B, Nakicenovic N (2008) Learning from global emissions scenarios. Environ Res Lett 3(4)

  • O’Neill B, Pulver S, Vandeveer S, Garb Y (2008) Where next with global environmental scenarios? Environ Res Lett 3(4)

  • Oppenheimer M, O’Neill BC, Webster M, Agrawala S (2007) Climate change: The limits of consensus. Science 317(5844):1505–1506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parmesan C, Yohe GW (2003) A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421:37–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patuelli R, Nijkamp P, Pels E (2005) Environmental tax reform and the double dividend: A meta-analytical performance assessment. Ecol Econ 55(4):564–583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PBL (2010) Assessing an IPCC Assessment -- An Analysis of Statements on Projected Regional Impacts in the 2007 Report. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague

  • Pearce DW (1995a) Valuing climate change. Chemistry & Industry 1024

  • Pearce F (1995b) Global row over value of human life. New Scientist 7

  • Pearce F (1995c) Price of Life Sends Temperatures Soaring. New Scientist 5

  • Peiser B (2007) IPCC: The Only Game in Town? Energy Environ 18(7–8)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pielke RA Jr (2007) The Honest Broker—Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Pielke RA Jr, Wigley TML, Green C (2008) Dangerous Assumptions. Nature 452:531–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risbey JS, Kandlikar M (2007a) Expressions of Likelihood and Confidence in the IPCC Uncertainty Assessment Process. Clim Change 85:19–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risbey JS, Kandlikar M (2007b) Expressions of likelihood and confidence in the IPCC uncertainty assessment process. Clim Change 85(1–2):19–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Root TL, Price JT, Hall KR, Schneider SH, Rosenzweig C, Pounds JA (2003) Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature 421(6918):57–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal E (2010) Skeptics Find Fault with UN Climate Panel. New York Times, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothman DS, van Bers C, Bakkes J, Pahl-Wostl C (2009) How to make global assessments more effective: lessons from the assessment community. Curr Opin Environ Sus 1(2):214–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiermeier Q (2010) IPCC flooded by criticism. Nature 463(7281):596–597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schimel D, Alves D, Enting I, Heimann M, Joos F, Raynaud M, Derwent R, Ehhalt D, Fraser P, Sanhueza E, Zhou X, Jonas P, Charlson R, Rodhe H, Sadasivan S, Shine KP, Fouquart Y, Ramaswamy V, Solomon S, Srinivasan J, Albritton DL, Isaksen ISA, Lal M, Wuebbles DJ (1996) Radiative Forcing of Climate Change. In: Houghton JT et al (eds) Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change—Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 65–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider SH, Semenov S, Patwardhan A, Burton I, Magadya CHD, Oppenheimer M, Pittock AB, Rahman A, Smith JB, Suarez A, Yamin F (2007) Assessing Key Vulnerability and the Risk from Climate Change. In: Parry ML et al (eds) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability—Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 779–810

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro HT, Diab R, de Brito Cruz CH, Cropper ML, Fang J, Fresco LO, Manabe S, Mehta G, Molina M, Williams P, Winacker E-L, Zakri AH (2010) Climate Change Assessments—Review of the Processes and Procedures of the IPCC. InterAcademy Council, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharkey W (1982) The Theory of Natural Monopoly. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shine KP, Fuglestvedt JS, Hailemariam K, Stuber N (2005) Alternatives to the global warming potential for comparing climate impacts of emissions of greenhouse gases. Clim Change 68:281–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith SJ (2003) The Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Indices—An Editorial Comment. Clim Change 58:261–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith JB, Schellnhuber H-J, Mirza MQ, Fankhauser S, Leemans R, Erda L, Ogallo L, Pittock AB, Richels RG, Rosenzweig C, Safriel U, Tol RSJ, Weyant JP, Yohe GW (2001) Vulnerability to Climate Change and Reasons for Concern: A Synthesis. In: McCarthy JJ et al (eds) Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, Cambridge, pp 913–967

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon S, Manning M (2008) The IPCC must maintain its rigor. Science 319(5869):1457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern NH, Peters S, Bakhski V, Bowen A, Cameron C, Catovsky S, Crane D, Cruickshank S, Dietz S, Edmondson N, Garbett S-L, Hamid L, Hoffman G, Ingram D, Jones B, Patmore N, Radcliffe H, Sathiyarajah R, Stock M, Taylor C, Vernon T, Wanjie H, Zenghelis D (2006) Stern review: the economics of climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Tavoni M, Tol RSJ (2010) Counting only the hits? The risk of underestimating the costs of stringent climate policy: a letter. Clim Change 100(3):769–778

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terradas J, Penuelas J (2008) Climate change policy: IPCC consensus is not enough. Ambio 37(4):321–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Economist (2003a) Hot potato revisited: a lack-of-progress report on the IPCC. The Economist

  • The Economist (2003b) Hot potato: the IPCC had better check its calculations. The Economist

  • The Economist (2010a) A Time for introspection. The Economist

  • The Economist (2010b) Flawed scientists. The Economist

  • The Economist (2010c) Science behind closed doors. The Economist

  • Tinbergen J (1952) On the Theory of Economic Policy. North Holland, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinbergen J (1954) Centralization and Decentralization in Economic Policy. North Holland, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Tirole J (2000) The Theory of Industrial Organization, 11th printing edn. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Tol RSJ (2009) The Economic Effects of Climate Change. J Econ Perspect 23(2):29–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Train KE (1991) Optimal Regulation: The Economic Theory of Natural Monopoly. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulph AM, Maddison DJ (1997) Uncertainty Learning and International Environmental Policy Coordination. Environ Res Econ 9:451–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Bergh JCJM, Button KJ, Nijkamp P, Pepping GC (1997) Meta-Analysis in Environmental Economics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Sluijs JP, van Est R, Riphagen M (2010) Beyond consensus: Reflections from a democratic perspective on the interaction between climate politics and science. Curr Opin Environ Sus 2(5–6):409–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waterson M (1988) Regulation of the Firm and Natural Monopoly. Blackwell, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Weitzman ML (2007) A Review of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. J Econ Lit 45(3):703–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WHO (1990) Potential Health Effects of Climatic Change. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • WMO (2006) Summary Statement on Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne B (2010) Strange weather, again: Climate science as political art. Theory Cult Soc 27(2):289–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zillman JW (2007) Some observations on the IPCC assessment process 1988–2007. Energy Environ 18(7–8):869–891

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper draws on my experiences as an IPCC author since 1994. I am grateful to Douglas Arent, Brian Fisher, Paul Gorecki, Nigel Lawson, Sean Lyons, Hans von Storch and Gary Yohe for useful comments and discussion.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin, Ireland

    Richard S. J. Tol

  2. Institute for Environmental Economics, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Richard S. J. Tol

  3. Department of Spatial Economics, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Richard S. J. Tol

  4. Department of Economics, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland

    Richard S. J. Tol

Authors
  1. Richard S. J. Tol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard S. J. Tol.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tol, R.S.J. Regulating knowledge monopolies: the case of the IPCC. Climatic Change 108, 827 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0214-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0214-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation