IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ssb/dispap/376.html

Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol without Russian participation

Author

Listed:

Abstract

All Annex B parties but Russia, Australia and USA, have ratified the Kyoto Protocol so far. It is still an open question whether Russia will ratify and secure that the Protocol enters into force. This paper therefore analyzes consequences of some proposed alternatives if the Russians decide not to ratify. The paper focuses on two cases where a limited number of the remaining Annex B parties respond to Russian withdrawal by the establishment of a new "mini-Kyoto" agreement whereby these parties commit themselves to the emission caps, the rules for emissions trading, compliance etc. set out in the Protocol. Environmentally, implementation of the Kyoto Protocol without participation from Russia and Ukraine is obviously superior to implementation with Russian/Ukrainian participation, due to the implied withdrawal of hot air based permits from the market. Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol without Russian/Ukrainian participation will, furthermore, imply higher costs to the remaining countries. This paper provides estimates of the permit price and environmental benefits that are likely if the proposed "mini-Kyoto" agreements are implemented.

Suggested Citation

  • Bjart J. Holtsmark & Knut H. Alfsen, 2004. "Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol without Russian participation," Discussion Papers 376, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    • Handle: RePEc:ssb:dispap:376
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ssb.no/a/publikasjoner/pdf/DP/dp376.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:aen:journl:2002v23-02-a03 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Golombek, Rolf & Hagem, Cathrine & Hoel, Michael, 1995. "Efficient incomplete international climate agreements," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 25-46, May.
    3. Carraro, Carlo & Buchner, Barbara & Cersosimo, Igor, 2002. "On the Consequences of the US Withdrawal from the Kyoto/Bonn Protocol," CEPR Discussion Papers 3239, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Frank Jotzo & Axel Michaelowa, 2002. "Estimating the CDM market under the Marrakech Accords," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(2-3), pages 179-196, September.
    5. Chen, Wenying, 2003. "Carbon quota price and CDM potentials after Marrakesh," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8), pages 709-719, June.
    6. Christoph BOhringer & Andreas LOschel, 2003. "Market power and hot air in international emissions trading: the impacts of US withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(6), pages 651-663.
    7. Bjart Holtsmark, 2003. "Russian behaviour in the market for permits under the Kyoto Protocol," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(4), pages 399-415, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Erik Haites & Farhana Yamin & Odile Blanchard & Claudia Kemfert, 2004. "Implementing the Kyoto Protocol without Russia," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(2), pages 143-152, June.

    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. Hagem, Cathrine & Maestad, Ottar, 2006. "Russian exports of emission permits under the Kyoto Protocol: The interplay with non-competitive fuel markets," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 54-73, January.
    2. Bernard, A. & Haurie, A. & Vielle, M. & Viguier, L., 2008. "A two-level dynamic game of carbon emission trading between Russia, China, and Annex B countries," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1830-1856, June.
    3. Shreekant Gupta, 2003. "Implementing Kyoto-type Flexibility Mechanisms for India: Issues and Prospects," Working papers 117, Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics.
    4. Kallbekken, Steffen & Flottorp, Line S. & Rive, Nathan, 2007. "CDM baseline approaches and carbon leakage," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 4154-4163, August.
    5. Larson, Donald F. & Ambrosi, Philippe & Dinar, Ariel & Rahman, Shaikh Mahfuzur & Entler, Rebecca, 2008. "Carbon markets, institutions, policies, and research," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4761, The World Bank.
    6. Julien Chevallier, 2009. "Intertemporal Emissions Trading and Allocation Rules: Gainers, Losers and the Spectre of Market Power," Working Papers halshs-00124713, HAL.
    7. Barbara Buchner & Carlo Carraro, 2004. "Economic and environmental effectiveness of a technology-based climate protocol," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(3), pages 229-248, September.
    8. Georgiou, P. & Tourkolias, C. & Diakoulaki, D., 2008. "A roadmap for selecting host countries of wind energy projects in the framework of the clean development mechanism," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 712-731, April.
    9. Pérez Domínguez, Ignacio & Britz, Wolfgang & Holm-Müller, Karin, 2009. "Trading schemes for greenhouse gas emissions from European agriculture: A comparative analysis based on different implementation options," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement (RAEStud), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 90(3).
    10. Flachsland, Christian & Marschinski, Robert & Edenhofer, Ottmar, 2009. "Global trading versus linking: Architectures for international emissions trading," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1637-1647, May.
    11. Vogt, Angelika & Hagen, Achim & Eisenack, Klaus, 2020. "Buy coal, cap gas! Markets for fossil fuel deposits when fuel emission intensities differ," Working Paper Series 304708, Humboldt University Berlin, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    12. Laurikka, Harri & Koljonen, Tiina, 2006. "Emissions trading and investment decisions in the power sector--a case study in Finland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 1063-1074, June.
    13. Lecocq, Franck & Crassous, Renaud, 2003. "International climate regime beyond 2012 - are quota allocation rules robust to uncertainty?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3000, The World Bank.
    14. Raouf Boucekkine & Carmen Camacho & Weihua Ruan & Benteng Zou, 2022. "Why and when coalitions split? An alternative analytical approach with an application to environmental agreements," Working Papers halshs-03676670, HAL.
    15. Bård Harstad, 2012. "Buy Coal! A Case for Supply-Side Environmental Policy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 120(1), pages 77-115.
    16. Barbara Buchner & Carlo Carraro & Igor Cersosimo & Carmen Marchiori, 2002. "Back to Kyoto? US Participation and the Linkage between R&D and Climate Cooperation," CESifo Working Paper Series 688, CESifo.
    17. Jung, Martina, 2003. "The Role of Forestry Sinks in the CDM - Analysing the Effects of Policy Decisions on the Carbon Market," Discussion Paper Series 26293, Hamburg Institute of International Economics.
    18. Brandt, Urs Steiner & Svendsen, Gert Tinggaard, 2006. "Climate change negotiations and first-mover advantages: the case of the wind turbine industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1175-1184, July.
    19. repec:dar:wpaper:35491 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Ying Fan & Xu Wang, 2014. "Which Sectors Should Be Included in the Ets in the Context of a Unified Carbon Market in China?," Energy & Environment, , vol. 25(3-4), pages 613-634, April.
    21. Christoph Böhringer & Thomas Rutherford & Marco Springmann, 2015. "Clean-Development Investments: An Incentive-Compatible CGE Modelling Framework," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 60(4), pages 633-651, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • Q30 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Nonrenewable Resources and Conservation - - - General
    • Q41 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Demand and Supply; Prices

    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:ssb:dispap:376. 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: L Maasø (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ssbgvno.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.