Copenhagen commitments and implications: A comparative analysis of India and China
Dynamic targets have been long advocated as a participatory tool for developing countries in climate change mitigation. Copenhagen commitments of India and China resume this trend after the unsuccessful attempt of Argentina a decade ago. However, linear intensity targets are prone to 'hot air' problems or non-compliance risks. Intensity targets of India and China are analyzed using their elasticity parameters. The relationship of these parameters to the structural nature of emissions and GDP profiles has been demonstrated and a method of comparing the probability indices of target achievement has been formulated in this paper, showing a lower probability for China compared to India. Similarly, a method of defining stringency factor for linear targets has been suggested and stringency factors evaluated for India (40%) and China (90%), which shows the relative stability of India's targets. This paper evaluates an energy-GDP-emissions index (EYE index) to indicate the extent of coupling/decoupling of economic growth from emissions. The three indices developed in this paper, namely, elasticity parameter, stringency factor and EYE index can be effectively used to analyze the economy-emissions relationships for policy making and target setting.
If 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- Philibert, Cedric, 2000. "How could emissions trading benefit developing countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(13), pages 947-956, November.
- Vittorio Valli & Donatella Saccone, 2009.
"Structural Change and Economic Development in China and India,"
European Journal of Comparative Economics,
Cattaneo University (LIUC), vol. 6(1), pages 101-129, June.
- Donatella Saccone & Valli Vittorio, 2009. "Structural Change and Economic Development in China and India," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 200907, University of Turin.
- Auffhammer, Maximilian & Carson, Richard T., 2008. "Forecasting the path of China's CO2 emissions using province-level information," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 229-247, May.
- Randall Lutter, 2000. "Developing Countries' Greenhouse Emmissions: Uncertainty and Implications for Participation in the Kyoto Protocol," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4), pages 93-120.
- Baksi, Soham & Green, Chris, 2007. "Calculating economy-wide energy intensity decline rate: The role of sectoral output and energy shares," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(12), pages 6457-6466, December.
- Cédric Philibert & Jonathan Pershing, 2001. "Considering the options: climate targets for all countries," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 211-227, June.
- Marschinski, Robert & Lecocq, Franck, 2006. "Do intensity targets control uncertainty better than quotas ? Conditions, calibrations, and caveats," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4033, The World Bank. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)