IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/feemdp/52544.html

Linking Reduced Deforestation and a Global Carbon Market: Impacts on Costs, Financial Flows, and Technological Innovation

Author

Listed:
  • Bosetti, Valentina
  • Lubowski, Ruben N.
  • Golub, Alexander
  • Markandya, Anil

Abstract

Discussions over tropical deforestation are currently at the forefront of climate change policy negotiations at national, regional, and international levels. This paper analyzes the effects of linking Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) to a global market for greenhouse gas emission reductions. We supplement a global climate-energy-economy model with alternative cost estimates for reducing deforestation emissions in order to examine a global program for stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at 550 ppmv of CO2 equivalent. Introducing REDD reduces global forestry emissions through 2050 by 20-22% in the Brazil-only case and by 64-88% in the global REDD scenarios. At the same time, REDD lowers the total costs of the climate policy by an estimated 10-25% depending on which tropical countries participate and whether the “banking” of excess credits for use in future periods is allowed. As a result, REDD could enable additional reductions of at least 20 ppmv of CO2-equivalent concentrations with no added costs compared to an energy-sector only policy. The cost savings from REDD are magnified if banking is allowed and there is a need to increase the stringency of global climate policy in the future in response, for example, to new scientific information. Results also indicate that REDD decreases carbon prices in 2050 by 8-23% with banking and 11-26% without banking. While developing regions, particularly Latin America, gain the value of REDD opportunities, the decrease in the carbon price keeps the value of international carbon market flows relatively stable despite an increase in volumes transacted. We also estimate that REDD generally reduces the total portfolio of investments and research and development of new energy technologies by 1-10%. However, due to impacts on the relative prices of different fossil fuels, REDD has a slight positive estimated effect on investments in coal-related technologies (IGCC and CCS) as well as, in some cases, non-electric energy R&D. This research confirms that integrating REDD into global carbon markets can provide powerful incentives for the preservation of tropical forests while lowering the costs of global climate change protection and providing valuable policy flexibility.

Suggested Citation

  • Bosetti, Valentina & Lubowski, Ruben N. & Golub, Alexander & Markandya, Anil, 2009. "Linking Reduced Deforestation and a Global Carbon Market: Impacts on Costs, Financial Flows, and Technological Innovation," Sustainable Development Papers 52544, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:feemdp:52544
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.52544
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/52544/files/56-09.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.52544?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Münnich Vass, Miriam & Elofsson, Katarina & Gren, Ing-Marie, 2013. "An equity assessment of introducing uncertain forest carbon sequestration in EU climate policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1432-1442.
    2. Sikdar, Chandrima, 2011. "Potential Economic impact of India-Sri Lanka bilateral trade liberalization," Conference papers 332075, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    3. Elofsson, Katarina & Gren, Ing-Marie, 2013. "Should forests be used as uncertain carbon sinks or uncertain fossil fuel substitutes in the EU Roadmap to 2050?," Working Paper Series 2013:8, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department Economics.
    4. Bosetti, Valentina & De Cian, Enrica & Sgobbi, Alessandra & Tavoni, Massimo, 2009. "The 2008 WITCH Model: New Model Features and Baseline," Sustainable Development Papers 55284, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    5. Szolgayová, Jana & Golub, Alexander & Fuss, Sabine, 2014. "Innovation and risk-averse firms: Options on carbon allowances as a hedging tool," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 227-235.
    6. Gren, Ing-Marie & Carlsson, Mattias & Elofsson, Katarina & Munnich, Miriam, 2012. "Stochastic carbon sinks for combating carbon dioxide emissions in the EU," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 1523-1531.
    7. Gren, Ing-Marie & Carlsson, Mattias, 2013. "Economic value of carbon sequestration in forests under multiple sources of uncertainty," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 174-189.
    8. Vass, Miriam Münnich & Elofsson, Katarina, 2016. "Is forest carbon sequestration at the expense of bioenergy and forest products cost-efficient in EU climate policy to 2050?," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 82-105.
    9. Philippidis, G. & Resano, H. & Sanjuan, A.I. & Bourne, M. & Kitou, E., 2012. "Shifting Armington Trade Preferences: A re-examination of the Mercosur-EU negotiations," Conference papers 332171, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    10. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L. & Alló, Maria & Barrio, Melina, 2016. "Ecosystem Services and REDD: Estimating the Benefits of Non-Carbon Services in Worldwide Forests," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 246-261.
    11. Gren, Ing-Marie Gren & Elofsson, Katarina, 2013. "Value of land use for carbon sequestration: An application to the EU climate policy," Working Paper Series 2012:4, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department Economics.
    12. Michetti, Melania & Parrado, Ramiro, "undated". "Improving land-use modelling within CGE to assess forest-based mitigation potential and costs," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124887, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    JEL classification:

    • Q23 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Forestry
    • Q24 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Land
    • Q42 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Alternative Energy Sources
    • Q52 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Pollution Control Adoption and Costs; Distributional Effects; Employment Effects
    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming
    • Q55 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Technological Innovation

    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:ags:feemdp:52544. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feemmit.html .

    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.