Principles of climate policy after 2012

Intereconomics

Volumn 41, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 60-77

  Michaelowa, Axel ^a   Schmitz, Simon ^b   Bhandari, Preety M ^c   Hasselknippe, Henrik ^d  

^a Hamburgisches Welt Wirtschafts Archiv   (Germany)

^b World Business Council for Sustainable Development   (Switzerland)

^c THE ENERGY AND RESOURCES INSTITUTE   (India)

^d NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33746877445     PISSN: 00205346     EISSN: 1613964X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10272-006-0174-7     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. The gorgeously illustrated book by Kevin Baumert, Timothy Herzog and Jonathan Pershing: Navigating the numbers. Greenhouse gas data and international climate policy, World Resources Institute 2005,contains an intriguing diagram showing energy flows and resulting emissions differentiated by sectors (pp. 4-5).
2. Recent results from climate modelling show an increased probability of high temperature increases at a specific level of greenhouse concentration reached due to anthropogenic emissions. To be sure that temperature increase is kept below a certain level, emission reductions have to start earlier and to be much stronger than thought previously. See e.g. the outcomes from the Exeter conference on dangerous climate change reported at www.stabilisation2005.com.
3. See also Aaron Cosbey et al.: Which way forward? Issues in developing an effective climate regime after 2012, IISD 2005.
4. The Protocol entered into force on 16 February 2005. The delay was due to the fact that countries representing at least 55% of the emissions of Annex B had to ratify the Protocol before its entry into force. As the USA had declared its opposition to the Protocol in early 2001, ratification by Russia was a necessary condition. Russia wavered for a long time. Only the EU's strong diplomatic pressure linking support of Russian accession to the World Trade Organisation to its ratification of the Kyoto Protocol proved a sufficiently compelling incentive for Russia to ratify.
5. However, several rules of the Kyoto Protocol such as Art. 3.9 clearly refer to subsequent commitment periods.
6. See Daniel Bodansky: International clAmate efforts beyond 2012: a survey of approaches, Pew Center 2004. Some approaches such as Contraction and Convergence had already been presented before 1997.
7. Onno Kuik: Post-2012Aclimate policy: assessing the options, Amsterdam 2005, evaluates the different approaches.
8. See Harald Winkler, Bernd Brouns, Sivan Kartha: Future mitigation commitments: Differentiating among non-Annex I countries, in: Climate Policy, Vol. 5, No. 5, 2006, pp. 469-486.
9. Cedric Philibert: Cew commitment options: compatibility with emissions trading, OECD, Paris 2005, discusses in detail how these target types can still accommodate emissions trading.
10. See Taishi SugiyaAa, Jonathan Sinton: Orchestra of treaties: a future climate regime scenario with multiple treaties among like-minded countries, in: International Environmental Agreements, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2005, pp. 65-88.
11. For a detailed analysis of the Montreal Conference see also Joanna Depledge, MichaAl Grubb: COP/MOP1 and COP 11: a breakthrough for the climate change regime, in: Climate Policy, Vol. 5, No. 5, 2006, pp. 553-560.
12. The direction which could be taken by such workshops is illustrated by the outcome of the climate dialogue at Pocantico reported in Daniel Bodansky, op. cit.
13. Nevertheless, the US intransigence led to the insertion of a clause stating that the Convention track should "not open any negotiations leading to new commitments". As this question is at the heart of the process, it remains to be seen how this wording is going to be interpreted. One could argue that "new" relates only to commitments of a new nature, which would ironically rule out intensity targets and other innovative approaches supported by the USA.
14. WBCSD: Facts and Trends to 2050: Energy & Climate Change, 2004.
15. WBCSD: Pathways to 2050: Energy & Climate Change, 2005.
16. See Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, 2001.
17. 2 emissions of GHGs such as methane.
18. World Resources Institute: WRI Issue Brief: Climate Science 2005: Major New Discoveries, 2005.
19. E.g. C. Freeman: The Economics of Industrial Innovation, London 1994, Pinter Publishers.
20. R. R. Nelson, S. G. Winter: Dynamic Competition and Technical Progress, in: B. Balassa, R. R. Nelson (eds.): Economic Progress, Private Values, and Public Policy: Essays in Honor of William Fellner, Amsterdam 1977, North-Holland.
21. G. Dosi: Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories, in: Research Policy, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1982, pp. 147-162.
22. R. Kemp: An Economic Analysis of Greener Technology, in: J. Schot, K. Fischer: Environmental Strategies for Industry, 1993, Island Press.
23. WBCSD: Facts and Trends to 2050, op. cit.
24. K. Arrow: The economic implications of learning-by-doing, in: Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 29, No. 3, 1962, pp. 155-173.
25. W. B. Arthur: Self-Reinforcing Mechanisms in Economics, in: W. B. Arthur: Increasing returns and path dependence in the economy, Ann Arbor 1994, University of Michigan Press.
26. S. Schmidheiny, F. J. L. Zorraquin: Financing Change: The Financial Community, Eco-efficiency, and Sustainable Development, 1996, MIT Press.
27. A recent UNEP Finance Initiative side event at COP11 called explicitly for a global long-term target on GHG emissions to enhance investor confidence.
28. Remarks by Sir Nicholas Stern at the Oxford Institute of Economic Policy Distinguished Lecture: "What is the Economics of Climate Change?", 31 January 2006.
29. WBCSD: Pathways to 2050, op. cit.
30. International Energy Agency (IEA): World Energy Outlook 2004.
31. World Resources Institute: Growing in the Greenhouse: Protecting the Climate by Putting Development First, 2005.
32. IPCC: Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage, 2005.
33. Quote from Machiavelli, as cited in former US President Clinton's speech in Montreal at COP11, December 2005.
34. UNFCCC: Proceedings of the Seminar of Governmental Experts, issued by the Climate Change Secretariat, Bonn 2005.
35. C. Chandler, R. Schaeffer, Z. Dadi, P. R. Shukla, F. Tudela, O. Davidson, S. Alpan-Atamer: Climate change mitigation in developing countries: Brazil, China, India, Mexico, South Africa and Turkey, Pew Centre Report, 2002.
36. UNFCCC, op. cit.
37. D. Bodansky, S. Chou, C. Jorge-Tresolini: International Climate Efforts Beyond 2012: A survey of approaches, Pew Centre Report, December 2004.
38. IGES: Asian Perspectives on Climate Regime Beyond 2012: Concerns, Interests and Priorities, 2005.
39. S. Winnie, A. Haxeltine, W. Kersten, M. Berk: Towards a long term Europen strategy on climate change policy, in: Climate Policy, Vol. 5, No. 3, 2005, pp. 244-250.
40. K. Anantram, L. Noronha: Financing adaptation, discussion paper prepared on the occasion of the 11th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, TERI 2005.
41. Ibid.
42. F. Biermann: Between the USA and the South, Strategic Choices for European Climate Policy, in: Climate Policy, Vol. 5, No. 3, 2005, pp. 273-290.