IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/natres/v30y2006i4p272-279.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Greenhouse gas emission reductions in the post‐Kyoto period: Emission intensity changes required under the ‘contraction and convergence’ approach

Author

Listed:
  • E. Kuntsi‐Reunanen
  • J. Luukkanen

Abstract

Various approaches have been proposed for allocating commitments to countries regarding the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. One of these methods is the ‘contraction and convergence’ approach, which defines emission permits on the basis of converging per capita emissions under a contracting global emission profile. The approach is unique in its simplicity. Only two major issues need to be negotiated and agreed upon: the target atmospheric concentration of CO2 and the date when the entitlements are to converge at equal per capita allocations. According to the contraction and convergence approach, developing countries can continue their current emission trends, whereas industrialized countries should reduce their emissions quite dramatically. This regime represents a shift away from the current approach towards defining commitments for all parties and their evolution over the long term. This article analyses how allocation schemes determined by the contraction and convergence approach might affect certain OECD and non‐OECD countries. Results for eleven countries selected for analysis (United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Japan, China, Venezuela, Thailand, Brazil, India and Indonesia) reveal that trends observed in the past few decades in most industrialized countries will lead to the contraction and convergence target.

Suggested Citation

  • E. Kuntsi‐Reunanen & J. Luukkanen, 2006. "Greenhouse gas emission reductions in the post‐Kyoto period: Emission intensity changes required under the ‘contraction and convergence’ approach," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 30(4), pages 272-279, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:natres:v:30:y:2006:i:4:p:272-279
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-8947.2006.00119.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2006.00119.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2006.00119.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. C�dric Philibert & Jonathan Pershing, 2001. "Considering the options: climate targets for all countries," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 211-227, June.
    2. Groenenberg, Heleen & Phylipsen, Dian & Blok, Kornelis, 2001. "Differentiating commitments world wide: global differentiation of GHG emissions reductions based on the Triptych approach--a preliminary assessment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(12), pages 1007-1030, October.
    3. Asbjørn Torvanger & Odd Godal, 2004. "An Evaluation of Pre-Kyoto Differentiation Proposals for National Greenhouse Gas Abatement Targets," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 65-91, March.
    4. Bert Metz & Marcel Berk & Michel den Elzen & Bert de Vries & Detlef van Vuuren, 2002. "Towards an equitable global climate change regime: compatibility with Article 2 of the Climate Change Convention and the link with sustainable development," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(2-3), pages 211-230, September.
    5. Marcel M. Berk & Michel G.J. den Elzen, 2001. "Options for differentiation of future commitments in climate policy: how to realise timely participation to meet stringent climate goals?," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(4), pages 465-480, December.
    6. Lasse Ringius & Asbjørn Torvanger & Arild Underdal, 2002. "Burden Sharing and Fairness Principles in International Climate Policy," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 1-22, March.
    7. Halsnaes, Kirsten & Olhoff, Anne, 2005. "International markets for greenhouse gas emission reduction policies--possibilities for integrating developing countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(18), pages 2313-2325, December.
    8. Phylipsen, G J M & Bode, J W & Blok, K & Merkus, H & Metz, B, 1998. "A Triptych sectoral approach to burden differentiation; GHG emissions in the European bubble," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(12), pages 929-943, October.
    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. Payne, James E. & Lee, Junsoo & Islam, Md. Towhidul & Nazlioglu, Saban, 2022. "Stochastic convergence of per capita greenhouse gas emissions: New unit root tests with breaks and a factor structure," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhou, P. & Wang, M., 2016. "Carbon dioxide emissions allocation: A review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 47-59.
    2. Kuntsi-Reunanen, E., 2007. "A comparison of Latin American energy-related CO2 emissions from 1970 to 2001," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 586-596, January.
    3. van Ruijven, Bas J. & Weitzel, Matthias & den Elzen, Michel G.J. & Hof, Andries F. & van Vuuren, Detlef P. & Peterson, Sonja & Narita, Daiju, 2012. "Emission allowances and mitigation costs of China and India resulting from different effort-sharing approaches," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 116-134.
    4. den Elzen, Michel & Höhne, Niklas & Moltmann, Sara, 2008. "The Triptych approach revisited: A staged sectoral approach for climate mitigation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 1107-1124, March.
    5. Zhu, Bangzhu & Jiang, Mingxing & He, Kaijian & Chevallier, Julien & Xie, Rui, 2018. "Allocating CO2 allowances to emitters in China: A multi-objective decision approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 441-451.
    6. Nadine Gouzée & Alain Henry, 2009. "Working Paper 17-09 - Exploration de répartitions des objectifs et opportunités du paquet climat-énergie en Belgique [Working Paper 17-09 - Verkenning van verdelingen van de doelstellingen en de op," Working Papers 0917, Federal Planning Bureau, Belgium.
    7. Zhang, Yue-Jun & Wang, Ao-Dong & Da, Ya-Bin, 2014. "Regional allocation of carbon emission quotas in China: Evidence from the Shapley value method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 454-464.
    8. Maria Garcia-Flecha & Nuria Oses-Eraso, 2007. "Cost Sharing Rules and International Climate Policy," Energy and Environmental Modeling 2007 24000015, EcoMod.
    9. Aurélie Méjean & Franck Lecocq & Yacob Mulugetta, 2015. "Equity, burden sharing and development pathways: reframing international climate negotiations," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 387-402, November.
    10. Thomas Jobert & Fatih Karanfil & Anna Tykhonenko, 2012. "Trade and Environment: Further Empirical Evidence from Heterogeneous Panels Using Aggregate Data," GREDEG Working Papers 2012-15, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    11. Wenhui Tian & Pascal da Costa & Jean-Claude Bocquet, 2015. "Inequalities of Sectors CO 2 emissions in China, USA and France, 2010-2050," Working Papers hal-01219769, HAL.
    12. Frank Jotzo & John C. V. Pezzey, 2006. "Optimal Intensity Targets for Greenhouse Emissions Trading Under Uncertainty," Economics and Environment Network Working Papers 0605, Australian National University, Economics and Environment Network.
    13. Wachsmuth, Jakob & Denishchenkova, Alexandra & Fekete, Hanna & Parra, Paola & Schaeffer, Michiel & Ancygier, Andrzej & Sferra, Fabio, 2019. "Fairness- and cost-effectiveness-based approaches to effort-sharing under the Paris agreement," Working Papers "Sustainability and Innovation" S04/2019, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    14. Asbjørn Torvanger & Lasse Ringius, 2002. "Criteria for Evaluation of Burden-sharing Rules in International Climate Policy," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 221-235, September.
    15. Wu, Pei-Ing & Chen, Chai Tzu & Cheng, Pei-Ching & Liou, Je-Liang, 2014. "Climate game analyses for CO2 emission trading among various world organizations," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 441-446.
    16. Hanich, Quentin & Campbell, Brooke & Bailey, Megan & Molenaar, Erik, 2015. "Research into fisheries equity and fairness—addressing conservation burden concerns in transboundary fisheries," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 302-304.
    17. Carlsson, Fredrik & Kataria, Mitesh & Krupnick, Alan & Lampi, Elina & Löfgren, Åsa & Qin, Ping & Sterner, Thomas, 2013. "A fair share: Burden-sharing preferences in the United States and China," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-17.
    18. Andries Hof & Michel Elzen & Detlef Vuuren, 2009. "Environmental effectiveness and economic consequences of fragmented versus universal regimes: what can we learn from model studies?," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 39-62, February.
    19. Groenenberg, Heleen & Blok, Kornelis & van der Sluijs, Jeroen, 2005. "Projection of energy-intensive material production for bottom-up scenario building," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 75-99, April.
    20. van Vuuren, Detlef P. & den Elzen, Michel G.J. & van Vliet, Jasper & Kram, Tom & Lucas, Paul & Isaac, Morna, 2009. "Comparison of different climate regimes: the impact of broadening participation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5351-5362, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:natres:v:30:y:2006:i:4:p:272-279. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1477-8947 .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.