Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface
- Part I Climate system science
- Part II Impacts and adaptation
- Part III Mitigation of greenhouse gases
- 15 Bottom-up modeling of energy and greenhouse gas emissions: approaches, results, and challenges to inclusion of end-use technologies
- 16 Technology in an integrated assessment model: the potential regional deployment of carbon capture and storage in the context of global CO2 stabilization
- 17 Hydrogen for light-duty vehicles: opportunities and barriers in the United States
- 18 The role of expectations in modeling costs of climate change policies
- 19 A sensitivity analysis of forest carbon sequestration
- 20 Insights from EMF-associated agricultural and forestry greenhouse gas mitigation studies
- 21 Global agricultural land-use data for integrated assessment modeling
- 22 Past, present, and future of non-CO2 gas mitigation analysis
- 23 How (and why) do climate policy costs differ among countries?
- 24 Lessons for mitigation from the foundations of monetary policy in the United States
- Part IV Policy design and decisionmaking under uncertainty
- Index
- Plate section
- References
23 - How (and why) do climate policy costs differ among countries?
from Part III - Mitigation of greenhouse gases
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 December 2010
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface
- Part I Climate system science
- Part II Impacts and adaptation
- Part III Mitigation of greenhouse gases
- 15 Bottom-up modeling of energy and greenhouse gas emissions: approaches, results, and challenges to inclusion of end-use technologies
- 16 Technology in an integrated assessment model: the potential regional deployment of carbon capture and storage in the context of global CO2 stabilization
- 17 Hydrogen for light-duty vehicles: opportunities and barriers in the United States
- 18 The role of expectations in modeling costs of climate change policies
- 19 A sensitivity analysis of forest carbon sequestration
- 20 Insights from EMF-associated agricultural and forestry greenhouse gas mitigation studies
- 21 Global agricultural land-use data for integrated assessment modeling
- 22 Past, present, and future of non-CO2 gas mitigation analysis
- 23 How (and why) do climate policy costs differ among countries?
- 24 Lessons for mitigation from the foundations of monetary policy in the United States
- Part IV Policy design and decisionmaking under uncertainty
- Index
- Plate section
- References
Summary
Introduction
There have been many studies of the cost to Annex B countries of meeting Kyoto Protocol commitments. Unfortunately for these analyses, the Protocol has proved to be a moving target in terms of its interpretation and likely implementation. In addition, the economic performance and future expectations for some parties also are changing, and with these changes come revisions in reference emissions, which have a strong influence on the projected cost of meeting Protocol requirements. Looking back across these studies, the progression of work can be divided into three broad phases. The first studies were conducted soon after the Protocol was signed in 1997, and they focused on carbon emissions from fossil fuels. Often they assumed an idealized system of harmonized carbon taxes, or cap-and-trade among all the Annex B parties, contrasting such systems with implementation without international permit trade but with an idealized trading system operating within each country (see, for example, Weyant and Hill [1999]). These studies showed a high cost of the Protocol with autarkic compliance, but huge benefits of international trading because it made Russian “hot air” (potentially tradable emission quotas in excess of their anticipated emissions) accessible to other Annex B parties.
A second phase of studies followed the final negotiations in Marrakech in 2001 (Manne and Richels, 2001; Babiker et al., 2002; Bohringer, 2002). By that time, the United States had withdrawn from the Protocol, and the potential contribution of Article 3.4 carbon sinks had been defined for each party.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Human-Induced Climate ChangeAn Interdisciplinary Assessment, pp. 282 - 293Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2007
References
, , and (2000a). The Kyoto Protocol and developing countries. Energy Policy 28, 525–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2000b). Effects of Differentiating Climate Policy by Sector: A United States Example. Cambridge MA: MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report 61.Google Scholar
, and (2000c). Japanese nuclear power and the Kyoto agreement. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies 14, 169–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , et al. (2001). The MIT Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis (EPPA) Model: Revisions, Sensitivities, and Comparisons of Results. Cambridge MA: MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report 71.Google Scholar
, , and (2002). The evolution of a climate regime: Kyoto to Marrakech. Environmental Science and Policy 5(3), 195–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and (2003a). Assessing the impact of carbon tax differentiation in the European Union. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 8(3), 187–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2003b). Tax distortions and global climate policy. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 46, 269–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2004). Is international emissions trading always beneficial?The Energy Journal 25(2), 33–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and (2003). Russia's Role in the Kyoto Protocol. Cambridge MA: MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report 98.Google Scholar
(2002). Climate politics from Kyoto to Bonn: from little to nothing? The Energy Journal 23(2), 51–71.CrossRef
and (2002). Global Trade, Assistance, and Production: The GTAP 5 Data Base. West Lafayette, IN: Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University.Google Scholar
and (1998). Analysis of Post-Kyoto CO2 Emissions Trading Using Marginal Abatement Curves. Cambridge MA: MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report 40.Google Scholar
and (2000). Supplementarity: an invitation to monopsony?The Energy Journal 21(4), 29–59.Google Scholar
and (2001). Environmental controls, scarcity rents, and pre-existing distortions. Journal of Public Economics 80, 249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1995). Environmental taxation and the “Double Dividend:” a reader's guide. International Tax and Public Finance 2/2, 157–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1997). Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
, , et al. (1997). CO2 emissions limits: economic adjustments and the distribution of burdens. The Energy Journal 18(3), 31–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacoby, H. D. and Sue Wing, I. (1999). Adjustment time, capital malleability, and policy cost. The Energy Journal Special Issue: The Costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation, 73–92.
and (2004). The safety valve and climate policy. Energy Policy 32(4), 481–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manne A. and Richels, R. (2001). US Rejection of the Kyoto Protocol: The Impact on Compliance Cost and CO2Emissions. AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, Working Paper 01–12.
Mayer, M., Hyman, R., Harnisch J. and Reilly, J. M. (2000). Emissions Inventories and Time Trends for Greenhouse Gases and Other Pollutants. Cambridge, MA: MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Technical Note 1.
OECD/IEA (2004). Energy Prices and Taxes, Quarterly Statistics, 2nd Quarter. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development/International Energy Agency.
, , , and (2003). Emissions Trading to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the United States: The McCain-Lieberman Proposal. Cambridge MA: MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report 97.Google Scholar
, , , and (2004a). Disaggregating Household Transport in the MIT-EPPA Model. Cambridge MA: MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Technical Note 5.Google Scholar
, , and (2004b). The Cost of Kyoto Protocol Targets: The Case of Japan. Cambridge MA: MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report 112.Google Scholar
, , et al. (2005). The MIT Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis (EPPA) Model: Version 4. Cambridge MA: MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Changes, Report 125.Google Scholar
, , et al. (1999). Multi-gas assessment of the Kyoto Protocol. Nature 401, 549–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , et al. (1993). The Efficiency Value of Carbon Tax Revenues, Stanford CA: Energy Modeling Forum EMF Working Paper 12.8.Google Scholar
Weyant, J. P. and Hill, J. N. (1999). The Costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation. The Energy Journal Special Issue: Introduction and overview, vii–xliv.
White House (2002). Global Climate Change Policy Book. Washington DC: White House, February.
Yang, T., Reilly, J. M. and Paltsev, S. (2005). Air pollution health effects: toward an integrated assessment. In The Coupling of Climate and Economic Dynamics. ed. and . Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7
- Cited by