International Climate Regime Beyond 2012: Are Quota Allocation Rules Robust to Uncertainty?

Bringing the United States and major developing countries to control their greenhouse gas emissions will be the key challenge for the international climate regime beyond the Kyoto Protocol. But in the current quantity-based coordination, large uncertainties surrounding future emissions and future abatement opportunities make the costs of any commitment very difficult to assess ex ante, hence a strong risk that the negotiation will be stalled. The authors use a partial equilibrium model of the international allowance market to quantify the economic consequences of the main post-Kyoto quota allocation rules proposed in the literature and to assess how robust these consequences are to uncertainty on future population, economic, and emissions growth. They confirm that, regardless of the rule selected, the prices of allowances and the net costs of climate mitigation for all parties are very sensitive to uncertainty, and in some scenarios very large. This constitutes a strong barrier against adopting any of these schemes if no additional mechanism is introduced to limit the uncertainty on costs. On the other hand, parties'preferred (least-cost) rules are essentially robust to uncertainty. And although these preferences differ across countries, the authors'analysis suggest some bargaining is possible if developing countries make a commitment and join the allowance market earlier in exchange for tighter quotas in the North. This underscores the importance of the rules governing the entry of new parties into the coordination. But the magnitude of the win-win potential strongly depends on how different abatement costs are assumed to be between industrial and developing countries, and on how long that gap is assumed to persist.

[1]  Mark Jaccard From equipment to infrastructure: community energy management and greenhouse gas emission reduction , 1997 .

[2]  H. Groenenberg,et al.  Differentiating commitments world wide: global differentiation of GHG emissions reductions based on the Triptych approach—a preliminary assessment , 2001 .

[3]  Minh Ha Duong,et al.  Decision making under uncertainty and inertia constraints: sectoral implications of the when flexibility , 1998 .

[4]  L. Greene EHPnet: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , 2000, Environmental Health Perspectives.

[5]  Leo Schrattenholzer,et al.  Estimating the costs of mitigating greenhouse gases , 1996 .

[6]  M. Weitzman Prices vs. Quantities , 1974 .

[7]  Aie World Energy Outlook 2009 , 2000 .

[8]  Wilfrid Bach,et al.  Energy Policy in the Greenhouse: From Warming Fate to Warming Limit , 1992 .

[9]  The multi-sector convergence approach : a flexible framework for negotiating global rules for national greenhouse gas emissions mitigation targets , 2001 .

[10]  Henry D. Jacoby,et al.  Annex I differentiation proposals : implications for welfare, equity and policy , 1997 .

[11]  J. Hourcade,et al.  The Economics of a Lost Deal: Kyoto - The Hague - Marrakesh , 2002 .

[12]  S. Narain,et al.  Global warming in an unequal world : a case of environmental colonialism , 1991 .

[13]  M. Thring World Energy Outlook , 1977 .

[14]  Fortunat Joos,et al.  Stabilisation of atmospheric greenhouse gases: Physical, biological, and socio-economic implications , 1997 .

[15]  Jonathan G. Koomey,et al.  Energy policy in the greenhouse , 1989 .

[16]  I. Wing,et al.  Toward a useful architecture for climate change negotiations , 1999 .

[17]  Axel Michaelowa,et al.  Estimating the CDM market under the Marrakech Accords , 2002 .

[18]  Alexei G. Sankovski,et al.  No-policy greenhouse gas emission scenarios: revisiting IPCC 1992 , 1998 .

[19]  E. M. Bailey,et al.  The Market for Sulfur Dioxide Emissions , 1998 .

[20]  J. Bruce,et al.  Climate change, 1995 : economic and social dimensions of climate change , 1997 .

[21]  M. Varilek,et al.  THE EMERGING INTERNATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS MARKET , 2002 .

[22]  P. Sands The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , 1992 .

[23]  Kenneth J. Arrow,et al.  Discounting, Morality, and Gaming , 1996 .

[24]  Jean Charles Hourcade,et al.  Global, Regional and national Costs and Ancillary Benefits of Mitigation , 2001 .

[25]  Kornelis Blok,et al.  A Triptych sectoral approach to burden differentiation; GHG emissions in the European bubble , 1998 .

[26]  David G. Victor,et al.  The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the Struggle to Slow Global Warming , 2001 .

[27]  Mark A. Ridgley,et al.  Fair sharing of greenhouse gas burdens , 1996 .

[28]  M. Allais Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risque : critique des postulats et axiomes de l'ecole americaine , 1953 .

[29]  A. Henderson‐sellers Global Change Scenarios of the 21st Century: Results from the IMAGE 2.1 Model , 2000 .

[30]  D. Kammen,et al.  Equity and Greenhouse Gas Responsibility , 2000, Science.

[31]  Minh Ha Duong,et al.  Optimal Control Models and Elicitation of Attitudes towards Climate Damages , 2003 .

[32]  Lasse Ringius,et al.  Can multi-criteria rules fairly distribute climate burdens?: OECD results from three burden sharing rules , 1998 .

[33]  M. Elzen,et al.  Evaluating the Bonn—Marrakesh agreement , 2002 .

[34]  Michiel Schaeffer,et al.  The Brazilian Proposal and other Options for International Burden Sharing: an evaluation of methodological and policy aspects using the FAIR model , 1999 .

[35]  J. Houghton,et al.  Climate change 2001 : the scientific basis , 2001 .

[36]  A. Denny Ellerman,et al.  The effects on developing countries of the Kyoto Protocol and CO₂ emissions trading , 1998 .

[37]  T. Sterner,et al.  Policy Instruments for Environmental and Natural Resource Management , 2002 .

[38]  Economic Issues and Negotiation on Global Environment , 1994 .

[39]  J. Houghton,et al.  Climate change 1992 : the supplementary report to the IPCC scientific assessment , 1992 .

[40]  O V Erview,et al.  Sustainable Development in a Dynamic World , 2003 .

[41]  Alan S. Manne,et al.  The Greenhouse Debate: Econonmic Efficiency, Burden Sharing and Hedging Strategies , 1995 .

[42]  R. Leemans,et al.  Global change scenarios of the 21st Century : results from the IMAGE 2.1 model , 1998 .

[43]  William D. Nordhaus,et al.  Requiem for Kyoto: An Economic Analysis of the Kyoto Protocol , 1999 .

[44]  M. Trommetter,et al.  Au-delà de Kyoto: enjeux d'équité et d'efficacité dans la négociation sur le changement climatique , 2000 .

[45]  Some Lessons from the Recent Experience on Greenhouse Effect , 1994 .

[46]  J. Hourcade,et al.  The Economics of a Lost Deal: Kyoto - The Hague - Marrakesh , 2002 .