They emphasis the need to address asset revaluation concerns in the context of climate politics and suggests that a focus on domestic politics is crucial. They also discusses the role of obstructionist interest groups (like the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers) and their influence on climate policy, pointing out that their opposition is often driven by concerns related to asset revaluation. If we put the concerns of asset holders who are losing their land and investments to climate change we can alter the conversation about what assets deserve our protection and which ones don’t.
Climate change is a clear threat to the LIO in either of two probable scenarios. One possibility is that the members of the LIO will do nothing much to mitigate climate change. That would represent a major substantive failure and a blow to the LIO’s legitimacy.Footnote 69 Alternatively, states might adopt pro-climate policies, but do so unevenly, with some implementing stronger and costlier policies than others. That unevenness would threaten the economic openness of the LIO, as jurisdictions with costlier pro-climate policies face competitive pressures to adopt measures such as border adjustment tariffs. In either scenario, climate politics is important for understanding the LIO’s future. The distributional consequences of climate change and decarbonization—and the obstructionist reactions that they generate—will be central.
