This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Improving on Kyoto: Greenhouse Gas Control as the Purchase of a Global Public Good

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
David F. Bradford (Princeton University, New York University, NBER, CESifo)

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

One way to obtain a global public good is to set up an institution to buy it, with the nations of the world contributing to the cost according to whatever sharing arrangements make political sense. An example would be the purchase of the services of national armed forces to carry out peacekeeping, with the cost separately apportioned. In these notes I suggest a way to exploit this approach to limiting accumulations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The “service” that produces the control is the reduction, by nations, in the levels of emissions over time from what they would otherwise choose, also known as the “business as usual” emissions path. In the scheme as envisioned, which could be used in a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol, the fact that all nations are sellers of reductions ameliorates the enforcement problems typical of commitments to particular emission paths. Another difference from the Kyoto-style system: In the scheme sketched here, the distributive of burdens is explicit, rather than implicit in the allowable emission amounts. The conflation of distributive and allocational issues is, arguably, an unnecessary source of contention in the design of institutions to control anthropogenic effects on the climate system.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help file. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.princeton.edu/~ceps/workingpapers/96bradford.pdf
File Format:
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Princeton University, Department of Economics, Center for Economic Policy Studies. in its series Working Papers with number 106.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML, plain text, BibTeX, RIS (EndNote), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: Jan 2004
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:pri:cepsud:106

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Princeton, NJ 08544-1021
Phone: (609) 258-5765
Fax: (609) 258-5398
Email:
Web page: http://www.princeton.edu/~ceps/index.htm
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (David Long).

Related research
Keywords:

Find related papers by JEL classification:
Q38 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Nonrenewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy (includes OPEC Policy)
Q48 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Government Policy

Cited by:
(explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)

  1. Pizer, William A., 2007. "The Evolution of a Global Climate Change Agreement," Discussion Papers dp-07-03, Resources For the Future. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  2. Pizer, William, 2005. "The Case for Intensity Targets," Discussion Papers dp-05-02, Resources For the Future. [Downloadable!]
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? The most prolific authors have over 400 items listed on IDEAS.

This page was last updated on 2008-11-7.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.