Environmental and economic effects of the Copenhagen pledges and more ambitious emission reduction targets
A multi-region, multi-sector dynamic computable general equilibrium model is applied to explore the economic and welfare effects of the pledges submitted by developed countries (Annex I countries) and major developing (non-Annex I) countries for 2020 under the Copenhagen Accord. In addition to analyzing scenarios reflecting the upper and lower bounds of the Copenhagen Pledges, one additional policy scenario where Annex I countries as a group reduce CO2-emissions by 30% in 2020 compared to 1990 levels, and where major non-Annex I countries reduce CO2 emissions 15% below baseline, is also analyzed. Economic effects are measured as changes in GDP compared to baseline and welfare effects are measured via the equivalent variation. Assuming that countries with emission targets may trade certificates, average reductions in GDP for countries with targets range between 0.1% and 0.7% in 2020 for the policy scenarios. While the GDP losses are larger for major non-Annex I countries with emission targets compared to Annex I countries, this is not the case for the changes in welfare. With the exception of Mexico, the welfare losses for the major non-Annex I regions, as a percentage of projected GDP in 2020, are lower than for the large Annex I countries.
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.:
- Sergey V. Paltsev, 2001. "The Kyoto Protocol: Regional and Sectoral Contributions to the Carbon Leakage," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4), pages 53-80.
- Hanslow, Kevin, 2000. "A General Welfare Decomposition for CGE Models," GTAP Technical Papers 498, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.
- Ianchovichina, Elena & Robert McDougall, 2000. "Theoretical Structure of Dynamic GTAP," GTAP Technical Papers 480, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.
- Peterson, Everett B. & Lee, Huey-Lin, 2009. "Implications of incorporating domestic margins into analyses of energy taxation and climate change policies," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 370-378, March.
- van Asselt, Harro & Brewer, Thomas, 2010. "Addressing competitiveness and leakage concerns in climate policy: An analysis of border adjustment measures in the US and the EU," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 42-51, January.
- van der Werf, Edwin, 2008.
"Production functions for climate policy modeling: An empirical analysis,"
Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 2964-2979, November.
- Edwin van der Werf, 2007. "Production Functions for Climate Policy Modeling: An Empirical Analysis," Working Papers 2007.47, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
- Jean-Marc Burniaux & Joaquim Oliveira Martins, 2000. "Carbon Emission Leakages: A General Equilibrium View," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 242, OECD Publishing.
- Burniaux, Jean-Marc & Truong Truong, 2002. "GTAP-E: An Energy-Environmental Version of the GTAP Model," GTAP Technical Papers 923, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.
- Christoph Böhringer & Carsten Vogt, 2003. "Economic and environmental impacts of the Kyoto Protocol," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 475-496, May.
- Claudia Kemfert & Katja Schumacher, 2005. "Costs of Inaction and Costs of Action in Climate Protection: Assessment of Costs of Inaction or Delayed Action of Climate Protection and Climate Change ; Final Report ; Project FKZ 904 41 362 for the ," DIW Berlin: Politikberatung kompakt, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, volume 13, number pbk13, March.
- Böhringer, Christoph & Löschel, Andreas, 2003. "Climate Policy Beyond Kyoto: Quo Vadis? A Computable General Equilibrium Analysis Based on Expert Judgements," ZEW Discussion Papers 03-09, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
- Nijkamp, Peter & Wang, Shunli & Kremers, Hans, 2005. "Modeling the impacts of international climate change policies in a CGE context: The use of the GTAP-E model," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 22(6), pages 955-974, December.
- Kemfert, Claudia & Truong, Truong, 2007. "Impact assessment of emissions stabilization scenarios with and without induced technological change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 5337-5345, November.
- Claudia Kemfert & Truong P. Truong, 2005. "Impact Assessment of Emissions Stabilization Scenarios with and without Induced Technological Change," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 530, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
- Kemfert, Claudia, 1998. "Estimated substitution elasticities of a nested CES production function approach for Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 249-264, June.
- Ottmar Edenhofer , Brigitte Knopf, Marian Leimbach and Nico Bauer, 2010. "ADAM's Modeling Comparison Project - Intentions and Prospects," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I).
- Christoph Böhringer & Thomas F. Rutherford, 2010. "The Costs of Compliance: A CGE Assessment of Canada's Policy Options under the Kyoto Protocol," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 177-211, 02.
- Kuik, Onno & Hofkes, Marjan, 2010. "Border adjustment for European emissions trading: Competitiveness and carbon leakage," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 1741-1748, April.
- den Elzen, Michel & Roelfsema, Mark & Slingerland, Stephan, 2010. "Dealing with surplus emissions in the climate negotiations after Copenhagen: What are the options for compromise?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(11), pages 6615-6628, November. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)