IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

The Potential Global and Developing Country Impacts of Alternative Emission Cuts and Accompanying Mechanisms for the Post Copenhagen Process

  • Huifang Tian
  • John Whalley

We report numerical simulation results using a multiyear global multi country modeling framework which we use to assess the impacts of alternative emissions cuts which will likely come under consideration for the process to follow the December 2009 UNFCCC negotiation in Copenhagen. The Copenhagen Accord sets out prior country unilateral commitments, and provides a framework for further negotiation of mutually agreed cuts. We also consider possible financial transfers under the Adaptation Fund and possible trade linked border measures against non participants. Countries are linked not only through shared impacts of global temperature change but also through trade among country subscripted goods. We can thus evaluate the potential impacts of either explicit or implicit accompanying mechanisms including funds/transfers, border adjustments, and tariffs. We calibrate the model to alternative BAU damage scenarios largely as set out in the Stern report. The welfare impacts of both emission reductions and accompanying measures are computed in Hicksian money metric equivalent form over alternative potential commitment periods: 2012-2020, 2012-2030, and 2012-2050. We consider different depth, forms, and timeframes for reductions by China, India, Russia, Brazil, US, EU, Japan and a residual Row. Given the damage estimates we use all countries lose from joint reductions since their foregone consumption is more costly than saved damage from reduced climate change. With the use of larger damage estimates this reverses the depth of cut and allocation of cuts by country cause large differences in impacts by country, while differences in form of cut (intensity, embedment) matter less. Accompanying mechanisms also can make a large difference to participation decisions and especially for large population, low wage, rapidly growing non OECD countries, but are costly for the OECD countries. This all suggests that the bargaining set for the post Copenhagen process is very large, making an eventual jointly agreed outcome difficult to achieve. This paper was mistakenly issued in its paper form with the final word missing from the title. Our apologies for the error. NBER Publications

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.

File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w16090.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc in its series NBER Working Papers with number 16090.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: Jun 2010
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:16090
Note: EEE ITI
Contact details of provider: Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.
Phone: 617-868-3900
Web page: http://www.nber.orgEmail:


More information through EDIRC

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.:

as in new window
  1. Huifang Tian & John Whalley, 2009. "Trade Sanctions, Financial Transfers and BRIC's Participation in Global Climate Change Negotiations," CESifo Working Paper Series 2698, CESifo Group Munich.
  2. 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.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:16090. 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: ()

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.