IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/oec/ecoaaa/702-en.html

The Incentives to Participate in and the Stability of International Climate Coalitions: A Game-Theoretic Approach Using the WITCH Model

Author

Listed:
  • Valentina Bosetti

    (Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM))

  • Carlo Carraro

    (Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM))

  • Enrica De Cian

    (Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM))

  • Romain Duval

    (OECD)

  • Emanuele Massetti

    (Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM))

  • Massimo Tavoni

    (Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM))

Abstract

This paper uses WITCH, an integrated assessment model with a game-theoretic structure, to explore the prospects for, and the stability of broad coalitions to achieve ambitious climate change mitigation action. Only coalitions including all large emitting regions are found to be technically able to meet a concentration stabilisation target below 550 ppm CO2eq by 2100. Once the free-riding incentives of non-participants are taken into account, only a “grand coalition” including virtually all regions can be successful. This grand coalition is profitable as a whole, implying that all countries can gain from participation provided appropriate transfers are made across them. However, neither the grand coalition nor smaller but still environmentally significant coalitions appear to be stable. This is because the collective welfare surplus from cooperation is not found to be large enough for transfers to offset the free-riding incentives of all countries simultaneously. Some factors omitted from the analysis, which might improve coalition stability, include the co-benefits from mitigation action, the costless removal of fossil fuel subsidies, as well as alternative assumptions regarding countries’ bargaining behaviour. Incitations à participer à des coalitions internationales de lutte contre le changement climatique et stabilité de ces coalitions : Une analyse en théorie des jeux à l'aide du modèle WITCH Cet article utilise WITCH, un modèle d’évaluation intégré doté d’une structure en théorie des jeux, pour explorer les perspectives et la stabilité de larges coalitions de lutte contre le changement climatique. Il ressort que seules des coalitions incluant toutes les principales régions émettrices ont la capacité technique d’atteindre une cible de stabilisation des concentrations inférieure à 550 ppm CO2eq à l’horizon 2100. Une fois pris en compte les comportements de passager clandestin des régions non-participantes, seule une « grande coalition » regroupant pratiquement toutes les régions du monde est susceptible d’atteindre une telle cible. Cette grande coalition est profitable, impliquant qu’il est toujours possible de mettre en place un ensemble de transferts entre pays tel que tous gagnent à participer. Cependant, ni la grande coalition, ni des coalitions de moindre de taille mais néanmoins significatives d’un point de vue environnemental, n’apparaissent stables. Ceci tient au fait que le surplus collectif engendré par la coopération n’est pas suffisant pour permettre des transferts offrant à tous les pays simultanément les gains qu’ils tireraient d’un comportement de passager clandestin. Certains facteurs non pris en compte ici pourraient améliorer la stabilité des coalitions, tels les bénéfices connexes de la lutte contre le changement climatique, la possibilité de supprimer sans coût les subventions aux énergies fossiles, ou encore des hypothèses alternatives concernant le comportement de négociation des pays.

Suggested Citation

  • Valentina Bosetti & Carlo Carraro & Enrica De Cian & Romain Duval & Emanuele Massetti & Massimo Tavoni, 2009. "The Incentives to Participate in and the Stability of International Climate Coalitions: A Game-Theoretic Approach Using the WITCH Model," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 702, OECD Publishing.
  • Handle: RePEc:oec:ecoaaa:702-en
    DOI: 10.1787/223552487415
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    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. Yingying Lu & David I. Stern, 2016. "Substitutability and the Cost of Climate Mitigation Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(1), pages 81-107, May.
    2. Bosetti, Valentina & Carraro, Carlo & De Cian, Enrica & Massetti, Emanuele & Tavoni, Massimo, 2013. "Incentives and stability of international climate coalitions: An integrated assessment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 44-56.
    3. Sferra, Fabio & Tavoni, Massimo, 2013. "Endogenous Participation in a Partial Climate Agreement with Open Entry: A Numerical Assessment," Climate Change and Sustainable Development 156486, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    4. Marco Rogna, 2020. "Microeconomic models of a production economy with environmental externalities," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 2625-2650, March.
    5. Trivikram Dokka Venkata Satyanaraya & Herve Moulin & Indrajit Ray & Sonali Sen Gupta, 2019. "Improving Abatement Levels and Welfare by Coarse Correlation in an Environmental Game," Working Papers 266042710, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    6. De Cian, Enrica & Favero, Alice, 2010. "Fairness, Credibility and Effectiveness in the Copenhagen Accord: An Economic Assessment," Sustainable Development Papers 59478, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    7. Lu, Yingying & Stegman, Alison & Cai, Yiyong, 2013. "Emissions intensity targeting: From China's 12th Five Year Plan to its Copenhagen commitment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1164-1177.
    8. Bastianin, Andrea & Favero, Alice & Massetti, Emanuele, 2010. "Investments and Financial Flows Induced by Climate Mitigation Policies," Sustainable Development Papers 59418, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    9. Hans Gersbach & Noemi Hummel & Ralph Winkler, 2011. "Sustainable Climate Treaties," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 11/146, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    10. Hans Gersbach & Noemi Hummel & Ralph Winkler, 2021. "Long-Term Climate Treaties with a Refunding Club," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 80(3), pages 511-552, November.
    11. BUCKLE, Simon & MUÛLS, Mirabelle & LEIB, Joerg & BRECHET, Thierry, 2014. "Prospects for Paris 2015: do major emitters want the same climate ?," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2014008, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    12. Carlo Carraro, 2009. "The Road to Copenhagen: What Agreement Can Actually Be Effective and Stable? by Carlo Carraro," CESifo Forum, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 10(03), pages 30-36, October.
    13. Herve Moulin & Indrajit Ray & Sonali Sen Gupta, 2013. "Coarse Correlated Equilibria in an Abatement Game," Discussion Papers 13-11, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham.
    14. Gersbach, Hans & Hummel, Noemi, 2016. "A development-compatible refunding scheme for a climate treaty," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 139-168.
    15. Stine Aakre, 2016. "The political feasibility of potent enforcement in a post-Kyoto climate agreement," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 145-159, February.
    16. Massetti, Emanuele & Tavoni, Massimo, 2012. "A developing Asia emission trading scheme (Asia ETS)," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(S3), pages 436-443.
    17. Holladay, J. Scott & Livermore, Michael A., 2013. "Regional variation, holdouts, and climate treaty negotiations," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(2), pages 131-157, August.
    18. Trivikram Dokka Venkata Satyanaraya & Herve Moulin & Indrajit Ray & Sonali Sen Gupta, 2020. "Equilibrium Design by Coarse Correlation in Quadratic Games," Working Papers 301895429, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C68 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Computable General Equilibrium Models
    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • D58 - Microeconomics - - General Equilibrium and Disequilibrium - - - Computable and Other Applied General Equilibrium Models
    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:oec:ecoaaa:702-en. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/edoecfr.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.