IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/diw/diwwpp/dp729.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The "Bali Convention": Flexibility of Targets and Instruments Inevitable

Author

Listed:
  • Claudia Kemfert

Abstract

The Kyoto Protocol is one first important step towards a global greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategy. In order to avoid irreversible climate changes and huge economic damage, not just some but all of the responsible nations should agree on a joint proposal to reduce emissions. Sharing the burden fairly would mean that those nations with high emissions per capita should reduce them more than countries with low emissions per capita. However, a fair burden sharing should also take into account early action and economic and social conditions. Most of the countries, especially those with high economic growth, fear large economic losses if emissions reduction targets are very high. Especially fast-growing nations such as China and India suspect negative consequences if climate policy takes a dominant role. The post-Kyoto negotiations can only be successful if flexibility of targets and instruments is considered. The next UN climate conference, at the end of 2007 in Bali, is an important starting point for a so-called "Bali Convention". This convention should take into account different emissions reduction options and flexible emissions reduction targets. Germany's Chancellor Merkel supports a world per capita emissions target; Europe should find soon a fair burden sharing between the EU member states and start negotiations with 30 % emissions reduction in order to make clear how serious EU is to reduce emissions. The APEC nations favour an energy intensity reduction target. The emissions intensity of a nation can be reduced if CO2-free technologies are widely applied. Nations with a large share of CO2 emissions resulting from high fossil-fuel usage or high methane emissions from energy production or agriculture usually favour flexible indexed targets. The "Bali Convention" should define such flexible targets to take into account national conditions and visions. It is most important that countries agree on binding targets, either concrete emissions reduction targets or indexed targets such as emissions intensity or per capita emissions. The key to success is flexibility of targets and instruments.

Suggested Citation

  • Claudia Kemfert, 2007. "The "Bali Convention": Flexibility of Targets and Instruments Inevitable," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 729, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwwpp:dp729
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.63426.de/dp729.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Erik Haites & Farhana Yamin & Odile Blanchard & Claudia Kemfert, 2004. "Implementing the Kyoto Protocol without Russia," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(2), pages 143-152, June.
    2. Odile Blanchard, 2004. "Implementing the Kyoto Protocol without Russia," Post-Print halshs-00103321, HAL.
    3. Sergey Paltsev & John M. Reilly & Henry D. Jacoby & Angelo C. Gurgel & Gilbert E. Metcalf & Andrei P. Sokolov & Jennifer F. Holak, 2007. "Assessment of U.S. Cap-and-Trade Proposals," NBER Working Papers 13176, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Claudia Kemfert & Thure Traber & Truong P. Truong, 2007. "Comprehensive Package of Climate Protection Measures Could Substantially Decrease Cost of Emission Reductions in Germany," Weekly Report, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 3(3), pages 15-20.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jensen, Henning Tarp & Jensen, Hans Grinsted & Gylling, Morten, 2009. "Adoption of GM Food Crop Varieties in the European Union," Conference papers 331886, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    2. Joseph E. Aldy & William A. Pizer, 2009. "Issues in Designing U.S. Climate Change Policy," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3), pages 179-210.
    3. Carolyn Fischer & Richard D. Morgenstern, 2006. "Carbon Abatement Costs: Why the Wide Range of Estimates?," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 2), pages 73-86.
    4. Webster, Mort & Sue Wing, Ian & Jakobovits, Lisa, 2010. "Second-best instruments for near-term climate policy: Intensity targets vs. the safety valve," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 250-259, May.
    5. McFarland, James R. & Paltsev, Sergey & Jacoby, Henry D., 2009. "Analysis of the Coal Sector under Carbon Constraints," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 404-424, May.
    6. Last Name, First Name, 2009. "Distributional Impacts of Carbon Pricing Policies in the Electricity Sector," RFF Working Paper Series dp-09-43, Resources for the Future.
    7. De Cian, Enrica & Tavoni, Massimo, 2012. "Do technology externalities justify restrictions on emission permit trading?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 624-646.
    8. den Elzen, Michel & Höhne, Niklas & van Vliet, Jasper, 2009. "Analysing comparable greenhouse gas mitigation efforts for Annex I countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 4114-4131, October.
    9. Moslener, Ulf & Sturm, Bodo, 2008. "A European Perspective on Recent Trends in U.S. Climate Policy," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-026, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    10. Gilbert Metcalf & David Weisbach, 2008. "The Design of a Carbon Tax," Discussion Papers Series, Department of Economics, Tufts University 0727, Department of Economics, Tufts University.
    11. Kevin A. Hassett & Aparna Mathur & Gilbert E. Metcalf, 2009. "The Incidence of a U.S. Carbon Tax: A Lifetime and Regional Analysis," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 2), pages 155-178.
    12. Gilbert E. Metcalf, 2009. "Market-Based Policy Options to Control U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 23(2), pages 5-27, Spring.
    13. McKibbin, Warwick J. & Morris, Adele C. & Wilcoxen, Peter J., 2014. "Pricing carbon in the U.S.: A model-based analysis of power-sector-only approaches," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 130-150.
    14. Parry, Ian W.H. & Williams, Roberton C., 2011. "Moving U.S. Climate Policy Forward: Are Carbon Taxes the Only Good Alternative?," RFF Working Paper Series dp-11-02, Resources for the Future.
    15. Bassi, Andrea M. & Yudken, Joel S. & Ruth, Matthias, 2009. "Climate policy impacts on the competitiveness of energy-intensive manufacturing sectors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 3052-3060, August.
    16. Galinato, Gregmar I. & Yoder, Jonathan K., 2010. "An integrated tax-subsidy policy for carbon emission reduction," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 310-326, August.
    17. Gilbert E. Metcalf & Sergey Paltsev & John Reilly & Henry Jacoby & Jennifer F. Holak, 2008. "Analysis of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Tax Proposals," NBER Working Papers 13980, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Shammin, Md Rumi & Bullard, Clark W., 2009. "Impact of cap-and-trade policies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions on U.S. households," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2432-2438, June.
    19. Hertel, Thomas, 2013. "Global Applied General Equilibrium Analysis Using the Global Trade Analysis Project Framework," Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling, in: Peter B. Dixon & Dale Jorgenson (ed.), Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 815-876, Elsevier.
    20. Chisholm, Ryan A., 2010. "Trade-offs between ecosystem services: Water and carbon in a biodiversity hotspot," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 1973-1987, August.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:diw:diwwpp:dp729. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diwbede.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.