Recent times have witnessed an increasing number of countries and private firms pledging carbon neutrality by mid-century. Whilst representing a significant improvement in intentions to tackle climate change, such pledges lack substance and structure. For instance, individual pledges lack coordination and aggregation among peers, while strategies and measures to achieve ambitious targets are largely absent. Moreover, current disagreements obstructing progress in international climate change negotiations further undermine the reliability of carbon neutrality objectives. Effective international policies are needed to foster aggregate mitigation ambitions and the creation of adequate supporting mechanisms. This theoretical paper describes a governance innovation aimed at overcoming such shortfalls and disagreements through a unifying yet customizable pathway towards carbon neutrality. It does so by first outlining a political governance framework based on a climate club interpretation of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. Secondly, it proposes carbon emission mitigation effort sharing on a per capita basis to ensure efficiency, equity and political feasibility. Thirdly, this paper describes how the supply of certified mitigations of carbon emissions required to satisfy effort sharing-based demand can be assetized as carbon credits by operationalizing Article 6 as a joint certification mechanism. The resulting governance architecture for managing demand and supply of mitigations shifts efforts to tackle climate change from a ‘problem-driven’ cost approach to ‘opportunity-driven’ value creation pathways towards carbon neutrality.

Peer-to-peer (P2P) energy trading is a new data-driven business model currently being trialed within the energy sector. Introducing P2P transactions to an essential service such as energy could have far-reaching implications for individuals and the grid. This paper raises considerations and questions from social, economic/markets and regulatory points of view, that should be understood and addressed by societies and policymakers. It does this by considering under what circumstances it is reasonable to conceptualize P2P energy trading as part of the sharing economy, and drawing parallels to the sharing economy experience in other sectors. In order to reap the full societal benefits, while avoiding considerable risks to infrastructure and individuals, a policy approach promoting dialogue and innovation is necessary. We suggest the regulatory sandbox is the most appropriate tool to achieve this and would help avoid the breakdown of trust between policymakers and platform companies observed in other sectors.