Level versus Equivalent Intensity Carbon Mitigation Commitments
Large population / rapidly growing economies such as China and India have argued that in the upcoming UNFCCC negotiations in Copenhagen, any emission reduction targets they take on should be based on their intensity of emissions (emissions/$GDP) on a target date not the level of emissions. They argue that this will allow room for their continued high growth, and level commitments in the presence of sharply differential growth between OECD and non-OECD economies represent asymmetric and unacceptable arrangements. Much of the policy literature agrees with this position, also arguing that while there is equivalence between commitments if growth rates are certain, where growth rates are uncertain equivalence breaks down. However, no explicit models or experimental design are used to support this claim. Here we use a modeling framework in which countries face a business as usual (BAU) growth profile under no mitigation, and can mitigate (reduce consumption) and lower temperature change but with a utility loss. International trade enters through trade in country differentiated goods, and the impact of mitigation on country welfare depends critically on the assumed severity of climate related damage. We then consider cases where country growth rates are uncertain, and compare the impacts of levels versus intensity commitments, with the latter made equivalent in the sense that expected emissions are the same. There are different senses of this equivalence; global equivalence with differing country impacts, or strict country by country equivalence. Under intensity commitments there is more variation in both consumption and emissions than is the case with level commitments, and we show cases where level commitments are preferred to intensity commitments by all countries. Whether this is the case also depends upon how growth rate uncertainty is specified. We are also able to consider packages of mixed level and intensity commitments by country which might be the outcome of UNFCCC negotiations. Outcomes can thus be opposite to prevailing opinion, but it depends on how the equivalent targets are specified.
|Date of creation:||Sep 2009|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.nber.org
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Henry D. Jacoby & Richard S. Eckaus & A. Denny Ellerman & Ronald G. Prinn & David M. Reiner & Zili Yang, 1997. "CO2 Emissions Limits: Economic Adjustments and the Distribution of Burdens," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3), pages 31-58.
- Newell, Richard G. & Pizer, William A., 2003.
"Regulating stock externalities under uncertainty,"
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,
Elsevier, vol. 45(2, Supple), pages 416-432, March.
- Huifang Tian & John Whalley, 2008. "China's Participation in Global Environmental Negotiations," NBER Working Papers 14460, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Cai, Yuezhou & Riezman, Raymond & Whalley, John, 2013.
"International trade and the negotiability of global climate change agreements,"
Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 421-427.
- Yuezhou Cai & Raymond Riezman & John Whalley, 2009. "International Trade and the Negotiability of Global Climate Change Agreements," NBER Working Papers 14711, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Barros, Vincente & Grand, Mariana Conte, 2002. "Implications of a dynamic target of greenhouse gases emission reduction: the case of Argentina," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(03), pages 547-569, July.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:15370. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.