IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/old/dpaper/334.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Adaptation financing as part of a global climate agreement: Is the adaptation levy appropriate?

Author

Listed:
  • Klaus Eisenack

    () (University of Oldenburg, Department of Economics)

Abstract

The negotiations for a global climate agreement recognize that substantial and additional funds need to be generated for assisting adaptation in developing countries. Currently, the 2% adaptation levy (AL) on the clean development mechanism (CDM) is intended to serve this purpose under the Kyoto Protocol. This paper analyses whether such an arrangement can achieve its objectives, and thereby discusses its future prospects. Can it deliver the funds needed for adaptation, and are they additional? As the AL is facutally a tax on emission trading, does it cause a significant excess burden? How do the transfers from CDM and AL depend on the commitments to reduce greenhous gas emissions, such that the AL may alter the incentives for reaching a global agreement? I address these questions with a partial equilibrium model based on recent marginal abatement cost estimates for 2020. While former studies have focussed on single values for the AL, this paper determines the expected transfers from CDM and AL for a spectrum of emission reduction targets and the full range of AL levels. The paper shows that the revenues from a 2% AL are neglectable compared to the requirements. Even when the AL is increased to maximize transfers in the presence of ambitious emission reduction targets, the revenues are not sufficient (e.g. $15 billion for a 30% reduction target and an 47% AL). These revenues are mostly subtracted from the CDM transfers, such that very little additional funds can be raised (e.g. $2.4 billion under the latter assumptions). There are indeed detrimental effects of the AL for reaching a global agreement, that are nevertheless relatively small. While the excess burden of the AL is small in terms of social cost, it accounts for more than 85% of the additional funds. This supports the overall conclusion that (i) the AL slightly disfavors agreements for climate protection, (ii) is far from sufficient to raise additional funds, and (iii) does this at comparatively high social costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Klaus Eisenack, 2011. "Adaptation financing as part of a global climate agreement: Is the adaptation levy appropriate?," Working Papers V-334-11, University of Oldenburg, Department of Economics, revised Mar 2011.
  • Handle: RePEc:old:dpaper:334
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.vwl.uni-oldenburg.de/download/DP_V-334_11.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2011
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brechet, Thierry & Lussis, Benoit, 2006. "The contribution of the clean development mechanism to national climate policies," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 28(9), pages 981-994, December.
    2. Criqui, Patrick & Mima, Silvana & Viguier, Laurent, 1999. "Marginal abatement costs of CO2 emission reductions, geographical flexibility and concrete ceilings: an assessment using the POLES model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(10), pages 585-601, October.
    3. Fankhauser, Samuel & Martin, Nat, 2010. "The economics of the CDM levy: Revenue potential, tax incidence and distortionary effects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 357-363, January.
    4. Christoph Bohringer, 2002. "Climate Politics from Kyoto to Bonn: From Little to Nothing?," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 2), pages 51-71.
    5. Rubbelke, Dirk T.G. & Rive, Nathan, 2008. "Effects of the CDM on Poverty Eradication and Global Climate Protection," Climate Change Modelling and Policy Working Papers 46650, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:old:dpaper:334. 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: (Catharina Schramm). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/fwoldde.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.