Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface
- List of abbreviations
- 1 Global climate governance beyond 2012
- Part I Architecture
- 2 The architecture of global climate governance
- 3 The consequences of a fragmented climate governance architecture
- 4 Environmental effectiveness and economic consequences of fragmented versus universal regimes
- 5 Developing the international carbon market beyond 2012
- 6 The overlap between the UN climate regime and the World Trade Organization
- 7 An architecture for long-term climate change
- 8 Shaping the architecture of future climate governance
- Part II Agency
- Part III Adaptation
- Index
- References
4 - Environmental effectiveness and economic consequences of fragmented versus universal regimes
what can we learn from model studies?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 July 2014
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface
- List of abbreviations
- 1 Global climate governance beyond 2012
- Part I Architecture
- 2 The architecture of global climate governance
- 3 The consequences of a fragmented climate governance architecture
- 4 Environmental effectiveness and economic consequences of fragmented versus universal regimes
- 5 Developing the international carbon market beyond 2012
- 6 The overlap between the UN climate regime and the World Trade Organization
- 7 An architecture for long-term climate change
- 8 Shaping the architecture of future climate governance
- Part II Agency
- Part III Adaptation
- Index
- References
Summary
Introduction
The thirteenth conference of the parties of the climate convention had launched a negotiation process to craft a new international climate change agreement by the end of 2009. This agreement would need to stipulate emission reduction commitments, specify essential actions to adapt to the impacts of climate change and mobilize the necessary funding and technological innovation. Given these enormous challenges, the structure and design of a future climate agreement are still unclear. Besides the negotiations within the UN climate regime, major greenhouse gas emitting countries are also leading ad hoc debates in other forums, for example in the context of the Group of Eight and the Asia–Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. Depending on the course of these processes, a new climate governance regime could develop in different directions; it could end somewhere between a universal, inclusive governance architecture and a strongly fragmented, heterogeneous governance architecture (Biermann et al., this volume, Chapter 2).
In recent years, numerous universal and fragmented climate regimes have been proposed (for an overview, see Bodansky 2004; Blok et al. 2005; Philibert 2005; IPCC 2007: 770–773). Many of these regimes are quantitatively or qualitatively assessed, but no attempt has yet been made to compare the costs estimates of these studies for specific regions under different regimes. Nevertheless, the available material allows us to make an assessment of the regional costs of several universal and fragmented regimes, based on different models. This chapter presents a literature review concerning the economic effectiveness of a number of possible universal and fragmented regimes. We use only studies that quantitatively assess both emission reductions and costs. From a quantitative perspective, this chapter tries to answer the appraisal question of the ‘architecture’ domain of this book, namely whether a universal or a fragmented regime will be more effective to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Global Climate Governance Beyond 2012Architecture, Agency and Adaptation, pp. 35 - 59Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2010
References
and (eds.) 2008. Background Report to the OECD Environmental Outlook to 2030. Bilthoven: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, and Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
1999. ‘A theory of full international cooperation’, Journal of Theoretical Politics 11: 519–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and 2005. Canada in a Post-2012 World: A Qualitative Assessment of Domestic and International Perspectives. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development.Google Scholar
and 2001. ‘Options for differentiation of future commitments in climate policy: how to realise timely participation to meet stringent climate goals?’, Climate Policy 1: 465–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2002. ‘Scenarios for differentiating commitments’, in (ed.), Building on the Kyoto Protocol: Options for Protecting the Climate. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, pp. 203–222.Google Scholar
2004. International Climate Efforts beyond 2012: A Survey of Approaches. Arlington, VA: Pew Center on Global Climate Change.Google Scholar
, , , and 2007. Post-2012 Climate Policy Scenarios. Bilthoven: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.Google Scholar
and 2008. ‘On the fair division of greenhouse gas abatement cost’, Resource and Energy Economics 30: 260–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2005. ‘Climate policy beyond Kyoto: quo vadis? A computable general equilibrium analysis based on expert judgments’, Kyklos 28: 467–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2004. ‘Contraction and convergence of carbon emissions: an intertemporal multi-region CGE analysis’, Journal of Policy Modeling 26: 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2006. ‘Burden sharing in a greenhouse: egalitarianism and sovereignty reconciled’, Applied Economics 38: 981–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and 2004. How Much Does a 30 Per Cent Emission Reduction Cost? Macroeconomic Effects of Post-Kyoto Climate Policy in 2020. The Hague: Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.Google Scholar
, and 2005. Caps and Fences in Climate Change Policies: Trade-Offs in Shaping Post-Kyoto. Bilthoven: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.Google Scholar
and 2003. ‘Future commitments and participation incentives: some climate policy scenarios’, paper presented at the Berlin Meeting of the Second ESRI (Economic and Social Research Institute of the Government of Japan) Collaboration Project on Environmental Issues, Berlin, 15–16 October 2003.
and 2004. Economic and Environmental Effectiveness of a Technology-Based Climate Protocol, Working Paper No. 61.04. Milan: FEEM (Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei).Google Scholar
2000. ‘The economics of coalition formation’, in and (eds.), Climate Change and European Leadership: A Sustainable Role for Europe? Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1998. ‘International environmental agreements: incentives and political economy’, European Economic Review 42: 561–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , , , , , and 2003. Greenhouse gas Reduction Pathways in the UNFCCC Process up to 2025, Technical Report B4-3040/2001/325703/MARE/E.1. Grenoble: DG Environment.Google Scholar
, and 2005. Coalition Formation under Uncertainty: The Stability Likelihood of an International Climate Agreement, Working Paper No. 98.2005. Milan: FEEM (Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei).Google Scholar
and 2005. ‘The FAIR model: a tool to analyse environmental and costs implications of climate regimes’, Environmental Modeling and Assessment 10: 115–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and 2003. Exploring Climate Regimes for Differentiation of Commitments to Achieve the EU Climate Target. Bilthoven: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.Google Scholar
, , , and 2007a. ‘Differentiation of countries’ future commitments in a post-2012 climate regime: an assessment of the “South–North Dialogue” proposal’, Environmental Science and Policy 10: 185–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and 2007b. Exploring European Countries’ Emission Reduction Targets, Abatement Costs and Measures Needed under the New EU Reduction Objectives. Bilthoven: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.Google Scholar
, and 2005. ‘Abatement costs of post-Kyoto climate regimes’, Energy Policy 33: 2138–2151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and 2008. ‘Regional abatement action and costs under allocation schemes for emission allowances for achieving low CO2-equivalent concentrations’, Climate Change 90: 243–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2007. Limiting Global Climate Change to 2° Celsius: The Way Ahead for 2020 and Beyond. Brussels: European Council.Google Scholar
and 2007. ‘Measures to enhance the success of global climate treaties’, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 7: 73–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and 2005. ‘The effect of membership rules and voting schemes on the success of international climate agreements’, Public Choice 125: 95–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and 2006. ‘Stability of climate coalitions in a cartel formation game’, Economics of Governance 7: 271–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1998. Encouraging Developing Country Participation in the Climate Change Regime, Discussion Paper E98–08. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit, Institute for Environmental Studies.Google Scholar
, , , and 2003. Evolution of Commitments under the UNFCCC: Involving Newly Industrialized Economies and Developing Countries. Cologne: Ecofys.Google Scholar
2007. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: IPCC.Google Scholar
and 2010 (in press). ‘The economics of low stabilisation: implications for technological change and policy’, in and (eds.), Making Climate Change Work for Us: European Perspectives on Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2003. ‘Equity and carbon emissions trading: a model analysis’, Energy Policy 31: 1033–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1995. ‘The greenhouse debate: economic efficiency, burden sharing and hedging strategies’, Energy Journal 16: 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and 1995. ‘MERGE: a model for evaluating regional and global effects of GHG reduction policies’, Energy Policy 23: 17–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2003. Model Runs with MESSAGE in the Context of the Further Development of the Kyoto Protocol. Berlin: German Advisory Council on Global Change.Google Scholar
, and 2006. ‘ Allocation of CO2 emission permits: economic incentives for emission reductions in developing countries’, Energy Policy 34: 1889–1899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2007. Distribution Matters: Taxes vs. Emissions Trading in Post Kyoto Climate Regimes, Working Paper No. 1380. Kiel: Institute for World Economics.Google Scholar
2005. Approaches for Future International Co-operation. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, and International Energy Agency.Google Scholar
2004. ‘ A possible way forward on climate change’, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 9: 245–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and 2006. ‘Climate agreements based on responsibility for global warming: periodic updating, policy choices, and regional costs’, Global Environmental Change 16: 182–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and 1998. ‘International equity and differentiation in global warming policy: an application to tradeable emission permits’, Environmental and Resource Economics 12: 25–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and 2005. Analysis of Post-2012 Climate Policy Scenarios with Limited Participation. Brussels: European Commission, Joint Research Centre and Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.Google Scholar
2001. ‘Climate coalitions in an integrated assessment model’, Computational Economics 18: 159–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2006. ‘A decision aid tool for equity issues analysis in emission permit allocations’, Climate Policy 5: 487–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and 2008. ‘The role of abatement costs in GHG permit allocations: a global stabilization scenario analysis’, Environmental Modeling and Assessment 13: 169–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , , , , and 2007. ‘Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at low levels: an assessment of reduction strategies and costs’, Climatic Change 81: 119–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2005. Cost Impacts of a ‘Beyond Kyoto’ Global Cap and Trade Scheme. Berlin: Institut für Umweltmanagement.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by