IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-15-32.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A natural outcome of the emerging pledge and review approach to international climate change policy is the interest in comparing mitigation efforts among countries. Domestic publics and stakeholders will have an interest in knowing if peer countries are undertaking (or planning to undertake) comparable efforts in mitigating their greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, if the aggregate efforts are considered inadequate in addressing the risks posed by climate change, then this will likely prompt a broader interest in identifying those countries where greater efforts are arguably warranted based on comparison with their peers. Both assessments require metrics of efforts and comparisons among countries. We propose a framework for such an exercise, drawing from a set of principles for designing and implementing informative metrics. We present a template for organizing metrics on mitigation efforts, for both ex ante and ex post review. We also provide preliminary assessments of efforts along emissions, price, and cost metrics for post-2020 climate policy contributions by China, the European Union, Russia, and the United States. We close with a discussion of the role of academics and civil society in promoting transparency and facilitating the evaluation and comparison of efforts

Author

Listed:
  • Aldy, Joseph E.
  • Pizer, William A.
  • Akimoto, Keigo

Abstract

No colons in abstract

Suggested Citation

  • Aldy, Joseph E. & Pizer, William A. & Akimoto, Keigo, 2015. "A natural outcome of the emerging pledge and review approach to international climate change policy is the interest in comparing mitigation efforts among countries. Domestic publics and stakeholders w," RFF Working Paper Series dp-15-32, Resources for the Future.
  • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-15-32
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-15-32.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Valentina Bosetti & Jeffrey Frankel, 2012. "Politically Feasible Emissions Targets to Attain 460 ppm CO 2 Concentrations," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 6(1), pages 86-109.
    2. Andries F. Hof & Michel G.J. Den Elzen, 2010. "The effect of different historical emissions datasets on emission targets of the sectoral mitigation approach Triptych," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(6), pages 684-704, November.
    3. Niklas H�hne & Michel den Elzen & Martin Weiss, 2006. "Common but differentiated convergence (CDC): a new conceptual approach to long-term climate policy," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(2), pages 181-199, March.
    4. Aldy,Joseph E. & Stavins,Robert N. (ed.), 2007. "Architectures for Agreement," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521871631.
    5. Keigo Akimoto & Fuminori Sano & Junichiro Oda & Takashi Homma & Ullash Kumar Rout & Toshimasa Tomoda, 2008. "Global emission reductions through a sectoral intensity target scheme," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(sup1), pages 46-59, December.
    6. Warwick J. Mckibbin & Adele C. Morris & Peter J. Wilcoxen, 2011. "Comparing Climate Commitments: A Model-Based Analysis Of The Copenhagen Accord," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 2(02), pages 79-103.
    7. Goulder, Lawrence H. & Pizer, William A., 2006. "The Economics of Climate Change," RFF Working Paper Series dp-06-06, Resources for the Future.
    8. Heleen Groenenberg & Kornelis Blok & Jeroen van der Sluijs, 2004. "Global Triptych: a bottom-up approach for the differentiation of commitments under the Climate Convention," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(2), pages 153-175, June.
    9. Axel Michaelowa & Sonja Butzengeiger & Martina Jung, 2005. "Graduation and Deepening: An Ambitious Post-2012 Climate Policy Scenario," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 25-46, March.
    10. Michel Elzen & Marcel Berk & Paul Lucas & Patrick Criqui & Alban Kitous, 2006. "Multi-Stage: A Rule-Based Evolution of Future Commitments under the Climate Change Convention," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-28, March.
    11. Trevor Houser, 2010. "Copenhagen, the Accord, and the Way Forward," Policy Briefs PB10-5, Peterson Institute for International Economics.
    12. Newell, Richard G. & Pizer, William A., 2008. "Indexed regulation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 221-233, November.
    13. Roger Fouquet (ed.), 2013. "Handbook on Energy and Climate Change," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14429.
    14. Aldy,Joseph E. & Stavins,Robert N. (ed.), 2007. "Architectures for Agreement," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521692175.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Joseph E. Aldy & William A. Pizer & Keigo Akimoto, 2017. "Comparing emissions mitigation efforts across countries," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(4), pages 501-515, May.
    2. Aldy, Joseph Edgar & Pizer, William, 2016. "Alternative Metrics for Comparing Domestic Climate Change Mitigation Efforts and the Emerging International Climate Policy Architecture," Scholarly Articles 22808338, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    3. Aldy, Joseph E., 2015. "Evaluating Mitigation Effort: Tools and Institutions for Assessing Nationally Determined Contributions," Working Paper Series 15-068, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    4. Gilbert E. Metcalf & David Weisbach, 2012. "Linking Policies When Tastes Differ: Global Climate Policy in a Heterogeneous World," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 6(1), pages 110-129.
    5. Carraro, Carlo & Aldy, Joseph & Pizer, William A. & Akimoto, Keigo & Tavoni, Massimo & Aleluia Reis, Lara, 2018. "Learning from Nationally Determined Contributions," CEPR Discussion Papers 12757, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Zhou, P. & Wang, M., 2016. "Carbon dioxide emissions allocation: A review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 47-59.
    7. van Ruijven, Bas J. & Weitzel, Matthias & den Elzen, Michel G.J. & Hof, Andries F. & van Vuuren, Detlef P. & Peterson, Sonja & Narita, Daiju, 2012. "Emission allowances and mitigation costs of China and India resulting from different effort-sharing approaches," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 116-134.
    8. Joseph E. Aldy & William A. Pizer, 2009. "Issues in Designing U.S. Climate Change Policy," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3), pages 179-210.
    9. Catton, Will, 2009. "Dynamic carbon caps. Splitting the bill: A fairer solution post-Kyoto?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5636-5649, December.
    10. Joseph Aldy, 2014. "The crucial role of policy surveillance in international climate policy," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 126(3), pages 279-292, October.
    11. Hansjürgens, Bernd, 2008. "Internationale Klimapolitik nach Kyoto: Architekturen und Institutionen," UFZ Discussion Papers 10/2008, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    12. Joseph E. Aldy, 2017. "Policy surveillance in the G-20 fossil fuel subsidies agreement: lessons for climate policy," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 144(1), pages 97-110, September.
    13. Valentina Bosetti & Jeffrey Frankel, 2014. "Sustainable Cooperation In Global Climate Policy: Specific Formulas And Emission Targets," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(03), pages 1-34.
    14. Emanuele Massetti, 2011. "Carbon tax scenarios for China and India: exploring politically feasible mitigation goals," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 209-227, September.
    15. Suzi Kerr & Adam Millard-Ball, 2012. "Cooperation To Reduce Developing Country Emissions," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(04), pages 1-30.
    16. Marschinski, Robert & Edenhofer, Ottmar, 2010. "Revisiting the case for intensity targets: Better incentives and less uncertainty for developing countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 5048-5058, September.
    17. McKibbin, Warwick J. & Wilcoxen, Peter J., 2013. "A Global Approach to Energy and the Environment," Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling, in: Peter B. Dixon & Dale Jorgenson (ed.), Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 995-1068, Elsevier.
    18. Kempf, Hubert & Rossignol, Stéphane, 2013. "National politics and international agreements," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 93-105.
    19. Frankel, Jeffrey A. & Bosetti, Valentina, 2011. "Politically Feasible Emission Target Formulas to Attain 460 ppm CO[subscript 2] Concentrations," Working Paper Series rwp11-016, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    20. Marc N. Conte & Matthew J. Kotchen, 2010. "Explaining The Price Of Voluntary Carbon Offsets," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 1(02), pages 93-111.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    emissions mitigation; international environmental agreements; modeling analysis; reciprocity; policy surveillance; intended nationally determined contributions;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy
    • F55 - International Economics - - International Relations, National Security, and International Political Economy - - - International Institutional Arrangements

    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:rff:dpaper:dp-15-32. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.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.