{"id":1288,"date":"2011-10-26T02:43:37","date_gmt":"2011-10-26T02:43:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/cop17durban\/?p=1288"},"modified":"2011-11-02T19:58:58","modified_gmt":"2011-11-02T19:58:58","slug":"top-down-and-bottom-up","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/cop17durban\/2011\/10\/top-down-and-bottom-up\/","title":{"rendered":"&#8220;Top-Down&#8221; and &#8220;Bottom-Up&#8221;"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>By: Maggie Rees<\/p>\n<p>Often spoken about in climate negotiations is \u201ctop-down\u201d and \u201cbottom up\u201d models for climate policy.\u00a0 Such models are included in overall approaches for climate negotiations.\u00a0 As COP17 reaches nearer and nearer, I am attempting to have a complete understanding of as many negotiation terms, models, lingo, articles, and any other information to be in full-awareness while in Durban.\u00a0 My focus on \u201ctop-down\u201d and \u201cbottom-up\u201d models first started this past weekend spent in Washington, D.C., and was extended while reading Harald Winkler\u2019s <em>Sustainable Development Policies and Measures<\/em> (2002).\u00a0 An overview of \u201ctop-down\u201d versus \u201cbottom-up\u201d models is presented below:<\/p>\n<p><strong>\u201cTop-Down\u201d Model<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Cohesive analysis of energy use and emissions<\/li>\n<li>Observes the larger economy<\/li>\n<li>Includes feedback effects concerning different markets<\/li>\n<ul>\n<li>Produced by changes in economy based on policy implementations<\/li>\n<li>Generally does not include technology of energy<a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/cop17durban\/files\/2011\/10\/top_down_bottom_up2.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignright size-medium wp-image-1290\" src=\"http:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/cop17durban\/files\/2011\/10\/top_down_bottom_up2-300x188.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"188\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/cop17durban\/files\/2011\/10\/top_down_bottom_up2-300x188.jpg 300w, https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/cop17durban\/files\/2011\/10\/top_down_bottom_up2.jpg 375w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><\/a><\/li>\n<ul>\n<li>Cannot include technological costs and energy production assumptions<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/ul>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>\u201cBottom-Up\u201d Model<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Economic analysis of energy use and emissions based on the individual<\/li>\n<li>Programming issues with mathematics<\/li>\n<li>Describe technological advances and options in detail<\/li>\n<li>Capable of analyzing efficiency standards and control policies<\/li>\n<li>Does not account for changes in price, incomes, or the larger economy relations<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Harald Winkler compares the two models by saying \u201cDividing a global reduction target among all countries (in a \u201ctop-down\u201d manner) is only one possible approach.\u00a0 The alternative approach is pledge-based (in a \u201cbottom-up\u201d matter). The pledge could be to quantify emission targets, as in the Kyoto process, or more qualitative in nature. In such an approach, it is clear that countries negotiate in their self- interest, so each tends to propose indicators most beneficial to itself\u201d (Winkler, 2002).<\/p>\n<p>What are the possibilities for \u201ctop-down\u201d and \u201cbottom-up\u201d models in the upcoming climate negotiations?\u00a0 Might it be a cohesive analysis of energy use and emission reduction techniques?\u00a0 Perhaps an individualized analysis would also suffice.\u00a0 Combining the two models to meet in the middle could be the best option.\u00a0 A hybrid of \u201ctop-down\u201d and \u201cbottom-up\u201d might just form a happy medium.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"text-decoration: underline\">\u00a0Works Cited:<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Blok, Kornelis, et al . &#8220;Economic Evaluation of Sectoral Emission Reduction Objectives \u00a0for Climate Change.&#8221; DG environment, 2001. Web. &lt;http:\/\/ec.europa.eu\/environment\/enveco\/climate_change\/pdf\/comparison\u00a0 report._pdf&gt;<\/p>\n<p>B\u00f6hringer, Christoph, and Thomas Rutherford. &#8220;Combining Top-Down and Bottom up in Energy Policy Analysis: A Decomposition Approach.&#8221; ZEW, 2011. Web. &lt;ftp:\/\/ftp.zew.de\/pub\/zew-docs\/dp\/dp06007.pdf&gt;.<\/p>\n<p>Winkler, Harald. \u201cSustainable Development Policies and Measures.\u201d\u00a0 World\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Resources Institute. 2002. Print.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>By: Maggie Rees<br \/>\nOften spoken about in climate negotiations is \u201ctop-down\u201d and \u201cbottom up\u201d models for climate policy.\u00a0 Such models are included in overall approaches for climate negotiations.\u00a0 As COP17 reaches nearer and nearer, I am attempting to have a complete understanding of as many negotiation terms, models, lingo, articles, and any other information to be in full-awareness while in Durban.\u00a0 My focus on \u201ctop-down\u201d and \u201cbottom-up\u201d models first started this past weekend spent in Washington, D.C., and was extended while reading Harald Winkler\u2019s Sustainable Development Policies and Measures (2002).\u00a0 An overview of \u201ctop-down\u201d versus \u201cbottom-up\u201d models is presented below:<br \/>\n\u201cTop-Down\u201d Model<\/p>\n<p>Cohesive analysis of energy use and emissions<br \/>\nObserves the larger economy<br \/>\nIncludes feedback effects concerning different markets<\/p>\n<p>Produced by changes in economy based on policy implementations<br \/>\nGenerally does not include technology of energy<\/p>\n<p>Cannot include technological costs and energy production assumptions<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<br \/>\n\u201cBottom-Up\u201d Model<\/p>\n<p>Economic analysis of energy use and emissions based on the individual<br \/>\nProgramming issues with mathematics<br \/>\nDescribe technological &#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":450,"featured_media":1364,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[19448],"tags":[42567,42571,25703,42568],"class_list":["post-1288","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-climate-change-2","tag-bottom-up","tag-harald-winkler","tag-maggie-rees","tag-top-down"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/cop17durban\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1288","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/cop17durban\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/cop17durban\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/cop17durban\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/450"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/cop17durban\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1288"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/cop17durban\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1288\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/cop17durban\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1364"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/cop17durban\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1288"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/cop17durban\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1288"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/cop17durban\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1288"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}