Level versus Equivalent Intensity Carbon Mitigation Commitments
AbstractLarge population / rapidly growing economies such as China and India have argued that in the upcoming UNFCCC negotiations in Copenhagen, any emission reduction targets they take on should be based on their intensity of emissions (emissions/$GDP) on a target date not the level of emissions. They argue that this will allow room for their continued high growth, and level commitments in the presence of sharply differential growth between OECD and non-OECD economies represent asymmetric and unacceptable arrangements. Much of the policy literature agrees with this position, also arguing that while there is equivalence between commitments if growth rates are certain, where growth rates are uncertain equivalence breaks down. However, no explicit models or experimental design are used to support this claim. Here we use a modeling framework in which countries face a business as usual (BAU) growth profile under no mitigation, and can mitigate (reduce consumption) and lower temperature change but with a utility loss. International trade enters through trade in country differentiated goods, and the impact of mitigation on country welfare depends critically on the assumed severity of climate related damage. We then consider cases where country growth rates are uncertain, and compare the impacts of levels versus intensity commitments, with the latter made equivalent in the sense that expected emissions are the same. There are different senses of this equivalence; global equivalence with differing country impacts, or strict country by country equivalence. Under intensity commitments there is more variation in both consumption and emissions than is the case with level commitments, and we show cases where level commitments are preferred to intensity commitments by all countries. Whether this is the case also depends upon how growth rate uncertainty is specified. We are also able to consider packages of mixed level and intensity commitments by country which might be the outcome of UNFCCC negotiations. Outcomes can thus be opposite to prevailing opinion, but it depends on how the equivalent targets are specified.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by University of Western Ontario, Economic Policy Research Institute in its series University of Western Ontario, Economic Policy Research Institute Working Papers with number 20094.
Date of creation: 2009
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Economic Policy Research Institute, Social Science Centre, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2
Phone: 519-661-2111 Ext.85244
Web page: http://economics.uwo.ca/research/research_papers/epri_workingpapers.html
Other versions of this item:
- Huifang Tian & John Whalley, 2009. "Level versus Equivalent Intensity Carbon Mitigation Commitments," NBER Working Papers 15370, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- F02 - International Economics - - General - - - International Economic Order; Noneconomic International Organizations;; Economic Integration and Globalization: General
- F18 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade and Environment
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2010-01-16 (All new papers)
- NEP-ENE-2010-01-16 (Energy Economics)
- NEP-ENV-2010-01-16 (Environmental Economics)
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.:
- Newell, Richard G. & Pizer, William A., 2003.
"Regulating stock externalities under uncertainty,"
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,
Elsevier, vol. 45(2, Supple), pages 416-432, March.
- Barros, Vincente & Grand, Mariana Conte, 2002. "Implications of a dynamic target of greenhouse gases emission reduction: the case of Argentina," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(03), pages 547-569, July.
- Henry D. Jacoby & Richard S. Eckaus & A. Denny Ellerman & Ronald G. Prinn & David M. Reiner & Zili Yang, 1997. "CO2 Emissions Limits: Economic Adjustments and the Distribution of Burdens," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3), pages 31-58.
- Huifang Tian & John Whalley, 2008. "China's Participation in Global Environmental Negotiations," NBER Working Papers 14460, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Cai, Yuezhou & Riezman, Raymond & Whalley, John, 2013.
"International trade and the negotiability of global climate change agreements,"
Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 421-427.
- Yuezhou Cai & Raymond Riezman & John Whalley, 2009. "International Trade and the Negotiability of Global Climate Change Agreements," NBER Working Papers 14711, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Marschinski, Robert & Edenhofer, Ottmar, 2010. "Revisiting the case for intensity targets: Better incentives and less uncertainty for developing countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 5048-5058, September.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.