IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/zewdip/869.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Economic and Environmental Implications of the US Repudiation of the Kyoto Protocol and the Subsequent Deals in Bonn and Marrakech

Author

Listed:
  • Zhang, ZhongXiang
  • Löschel, Andreas

Abstract

Taking account of sinks credits as agreed in Bonn and Marrakech, this paper illustrates how market power could be exerted in the absence of the US ratification under Annex 1 trading and explores the potential implications of non-competitive supply behavior for the international market of tradable permits, compliance costs for the remaining Annex 1 countries to meet their revised Kyoto targets, and the environmental effectiveness. Our results show that the US withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol has great impact on the economic costs and environmental effectiveness of the Protocol since it would lead to no real emission reduction in all remaining Annex 1 regions. Depending on how market power is exerted by the dominant permit suppliers, the former Soviet Union and the Eastern European countries, the overall compliance costs of all remaining Annex 1 regions differ significantly. Moreover, curtailing permit supply by market power increases substantially the overall environmental effectiveness by cutting the amount of hot air being emitted into the atmosphere by more than half, although to much less extent than in the case of the US compliance.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhang, ZhongXiang & Löschel, Andreas, 2002. "The Economic and Environmental Implications of the US Repudiation of the Kyoto Protocol and the Subsequent Deals in Bonn and Marrakech," ZEW Discussion Papers 02-28, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:zewdip:869
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/24778/1/dp0228.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. ZhongXiang Zhang, 2000. "Estimating the size of the potential market for the Kyoto flexibility mechanisms," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 136(3), pages 491-521, September.
    2. Cramton, Peter & Kerr, Suzi, 2002. "Tradeable carbon permit auctions: How and why to auction not grandfather," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 333-345, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Malueg, David A., 1990. "Welfare consequences of emission credit trading programs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 66-77, January.
    5. Zhang, ZhongXiang, 1999. "The design and implementation of an international greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme," MPRA Paper 13046, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Zhang, ZhongXiang, 1998. "Greenhouse gas emissions trading and the world trading system," MPRA Paper 12971, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Johannes Bollen & Arjen Gielen & Hans Timmer, 1999. "Clubs, Ceilings and CDM: Macroeconomics of Compliance with the Kyoto Protocol," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 177-206.
    8. Robert W. Hahn, 1984. "Market Power and Transferable Property Rights," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 99(4), pages 753-765.
    9. Paul M. Bernstein & W. David Montgomery & Thomas F. Rutherford & Gui-Fang Yang, 1999. "Effects of Restrictions on International Permit Trading: The MS-MRT Model," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 221-256.
    10. Christopher N. MacCracken & James A. Edmonds & Son H. Kim & Ronald D. Sands, 1999. "The Economics of the Kyoto Protocol," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 25-71.
    11. Johan Eyckmans & Denise Van Regemorter & Vincent van Steenberghe, 2001. "Is Kyoto fatally flawed? An analysis with MacGEM," Energy, Transport and Environment Working Papers Series ete0118, KU Leuven, Department of Economics - Research Group Energy, Transport and Environment.
    12. Misiolek, Walter S. & Elder, Harold W., 1989. "Exclusionary manipulation of markets for pollution rights," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 156-166, March.
    13. ZhongXiang Zhang, 2000. "The Design and Implementation of an International Trading Scheme for Greenhouse Gas Emissions," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 18(3), pages 321-337, June.
    14. Eftichios Sartzetakis, 1997. "Tradeable emission permits regulations in the presence of imperfectly competitive product markets: Welfare implications," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 9(1), pages 65-81, January.
    15. Böhringer, Christoph & Löschel, Andreas, 2001. "Market power in international emissions trading : the impact of U.S. withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol," ZEW Discussion Papers 01-58, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    16. Alan S. Manne & Richard G. Richels, 1999. "The Kyoto Protocol: A Cost-Effective Strategy for Meeting Environmental Objectives?," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 1-23.
    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. Springer, Urs, 2003. "The market for tradable GHG permits under the Kyoto Protocol: a survey of model studies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 527-551, September.
    2. 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.
    3. Simon Quemin & Christian Perthuis, 2019. "Transitional Restricted Linkage Between Emissions Trading Schemes," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(1), pages 1-32, September.
    4. repec:zbw:hohpro:354 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. 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.
    6. Harrie A.A. Verbon & Cees A. Withagen, 2004. "Tradable emission permits in a federal system," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2004/83, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    7. Eftichios Sartzetakis, 2004. "On the Efficiency of Competitive Markets for Emission Permits," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 27(1), pages 1-19, January.
    8. Boemare, Catherine & Quirion, Philippe, 2002. "Implementing greenhouse gas trading in Europe: lessons from economic literature and international experiences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2-3), pages 213-230, December.
    9. Requate, Till, 2005. "Environmental Policy under Imperfect Competition: A Survey," Economics Working Papers 2005-12, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Department of Economics.
    10. Zhang, Zhong Xiang, 2001. "Why has the energy intensity fallen in China's industrial sector in the 1990s? : the relative importance of structural change and intensity change," CCSO Working Papers 200105, University of Groningen, CCSO Centre for Economic Research.
    11. Hagem, Cathrine & Mæstad, Ottar, 2003. "Market power in the market for greenhouse gas emissions permits - the interplay with the fossil fuel markets," Memorandum 34/2002, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    12. Hatcher, Aaron, 2012. "Market power and compliance with output quotas," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 255-269.
    13. repec:old:wpaper:354 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Rubin, Jonathan & Leiby, Paul N. & Greene, David L., 2009. "Tradable fuel economy credits: Competition and oligopoly," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 315-328, November.
    15. Carolyn Fischer & Richard D. Morgenstern, 2006. "Carbon Abatement Costs: Why the Wide Range of Estimates?," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 2), pages 73-86.
    16. Stavins, Robert, 2004. "Environmental Economics," RFF Working Paper Series dp-04-54, Resources for the Future.
    17. Sartzetakis, Eftichios S., 1994. "Permis d’émission négociables et réglementation dans des marchés de concurrence imparfaite," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 70(2), pages 139-158, juin.
    18. Robert W. Hahn & Robert N. Stavins, 2011. "The Effect of Allowance Allocations on Cap-and-Trade System Performance," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(S4), pages 267-294.
    19. Nijkamp, Peter & Wang, Shunli & Kremers, Hans, 2005. "Modeling the impacts of international climate change policies in a CGE context: The use of the GTAP-E model," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 22(6), pages 955-974, December.
    20. Dormady, Noah C., 2014. "Carbon auctions, energy markets & market power: An experimental analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 468-482.
    21. Dormady, Noah C., 2013. "Market power in cap-and-trade auctions: A Monte Carlo approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 788-797.
    22. André, Francisco J. & de Castro, Luis Miguel, 2015. "Scarcity Rents and Incentives for Price Manipulation in Emissions Permit Markets with Stackelberg Competition," MPRA Paper 61770, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    climate policy; emission trading; market power; Kyoto Protocol;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q25 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Water
    • Q43 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Energy and the Macroeconomy
    • D43 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Oligopoly and Other Forms of Market Imperfection
    • Q48 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Government Policy

    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:zbw:zewdip:869. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zemande.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.