IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v39y2011i6p3697-3708.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Environmental and economic effects of the Copenhagen pledges and more ambitious emission reduction targets

Author

Listed:
  • Peterson, Everett B.
  • Schleich, Joachim
  • Duscha, Vicki

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Peterson, Everett B. & Schleich, Joachim & Duscha, Vicki, 2011. "Environmental and economic effects of the Copenhagen pledges and more ambitious emission reduction targets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3697-3708, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:39:y:2011:i:6:p:3697-3708
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151100276X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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).
    6. 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, February.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. van der Werf, Edwin, 2008. "Production functions for climate policy modeling: An empirical analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 2964-2979, November.
    14. Jean-Marc Burniaux & Joaquim Oliveira Martins, 2000. "Carbon Emission Leakages: A General Equilibrium View," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 242, OECD Publishing.
    15. 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.
    16. Ianchovichina,Elena & Walmsley,Terrie L. (ed.), 2012. "Dynamic Modeling and Applications for Global Economic Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107011694.
    17. 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.
    18. 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, December.
    19. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gabriele Standardi & Yiyong Cai & Sonia Yeh, 2016. "Sensitivity of Modeling Results to Technological and Regional Details: The Case of Italy’s Carbon Mitigation Policy," EcoMod2016 9557, EcoMod.
    2. Jotzo, Frank, 2010. "Comparing the Copenhagen emissions targets," Research Reports 107577, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    3. A. F. Hof & M. G. J. Elzen & A. Mendoza Beltran, 2016. "The EU 40 % greenhouse gas emission reduction target by 2030 in perspective," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 375-392, June.
    4. Larch, Mario & Wanner, Joschka, 2017. "Carbon tariffs: An analysis of the trade, welfare, and emission effects," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 195-213.
    5. Olivia Ricci & Sandrine Selosse, 2013. "A cost analysis of the Copenhagen emission reduction pledges," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 33(1), pages 764-771.
    6. Vicki Duscha & Katja Schumacher & Joachim Schleich & Pierre Buisson, 2014. "Costs of meeting international climate targets without nuclear power," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(3), pages 327-352, May.
    7. Elisa Delpiazzo & Ramiro Parrado & Gabriele Standardi, 2017. "Extending the Public Sector in the ICES Model with an Explicit Government Institution," Working Papers 2017.11, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    8. Wada, Kenichi & Sano, Fuminori & Akimoto, Keigo & Homma, Takashi, 2012. "Assessment of Copenhagen pledges with long-term implications," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(S3), pages 481-486.
    9. Bosello, Francesco & Davide, Marinella & Alloisio, Isabella, 2016. "Economic Implications of EU Mitigation Policies: Domestic and International Effects," EIA: Climate Change: Economic Impacts and Adaptation 234938, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    10. Solveig Glomsrød & Taoyuan Wei & Knut Alfsen, 2013. "Pledges for climate mitigation: the effects of the Copenhagen accord on CO 2 emissions and mitigation costs," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 619-636, June.
    11. Mendoza Beltran, Angelica & den Elzen, Michel G.J. & Hof, Andries F. & van Vuuren, Detlef P. & van Vliet, Jasper, 2011. "Exploring the bargaining space within international climate negotiations based on political, economic and environmental considerations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(11), pages 7361-7371.
    12. Francesco Bosello & Lorenza Campagnolo & Carlo Carraro & Fabio Eboli & Ramiro Parrado & Elisa Portale, 2013. "Macroeconomic Impacts of the EU 30% GHG Mitigation Target," Working Papers 2013.28, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    13. Leisa Perch, 2010. "Maximizing Co-Benefits: Exploring Opportunities to Strengthen Equality and Poverty Reduction through Adaptation to Climate Change," Working Papers 75, International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth.
    14. Francesco Bosello & Marinella Davide & Isabella Alloisio, 2016. "Economic Implications of EU Mitigation Policies: Domestic and International Effects," Working Papers 2016.34, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    15. Fragkos, Panagiotis & Tasios, Nikos & Paroussos, Leonidas & Capros, Pantelis & Tsani, Stella, 2017. "Energy system impacts and policy implications of the European Intended Nationally Determined Contribution and low-carbon pathway to 2050," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 216-226.
    16. Lim, Jaekyu, 2011. "Impacts and implications of implementing voluntary greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in major countries and Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 5086-5095, September.

    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:eee:enepol:v:39:y:2011:i:6:p:3697-3708. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.