Abstract: As global efforts to limit global warming under the Paris Agreement fall short, attention turns to climate clubs. For example, the Powering Past Coal Alliance (PPCA) committed to phasing out unabated coal and the Global Methane Pledge (GMP) to reducing methane emissions by 30 percent. These climate clubs focusing on phase-outs have yet to be empirically assessed. What characterizes phase-out clubs and which role do they play in global climate governance?
Drawing on global climate governance and climate club literature, this comparative assessment of six existing phase-out clubs maps out core features, focusing on five aspects:
1) membership size and composition
2) phase-out approach
3) linkages between clubs
4) effectiveness
5) relationship with the Paris Agreement.
The findings reveal that membership varies greatly in size and composition. Almost all phase-out clubs have increased their members with European and North American countries as prominent members. As Asian countries, including China and India, are mostly absent, phase-out clubs fail to include all large emitters and fossil fuel users. For phase-out approaches, 2030 stands out as the most common target year and phase-out timelines outnumber immediate bans. Overall, phase-out clubs with lower transformative ambition and many members, such as the GMP, exhibit a higher potential effectiveness. As actual effectiveness hinges on swift implementation, it is key to trace club progress in further research. All commitments are made in support of Paris Agreement implementation and complement it by adopting necessary phase-outs commitments long omitted in climate negotiations.
These findings contribute to ongoing debates in a number of ways: by providing empirical insight and a deeper understanding of phase-out clubs and their effectiveness as well as broader contributions to debates about the fragmented nature of global climate governance.