The contribution of the clean development mechanism to national climate policies

Journal of Policy Modeling

Volumn 28, Issue 9, 2006, Pages 981-994

  Bréchet, Thierry ^a   Lussis, Benoît ^b  

^a UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN   (Belgium)

^b Institute for a Sustainable Development   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Carbon market modeling; Clean development mechanism; Emission trading

Indexed keywords

EID: 33750961577     PISSN: 01618938     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpolmod.2006.01.006     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Baumert K., and Kete N. Designing the clean development mechanism: Operational and institutional issues (2000), Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris
2. Böhringer C., Conrad K., and Loschel A. Carbon taxes and joint implementation. An applied general equilibrium analysis for Germany and India. Environmental and Resource Economics 24 (2003) 49-76
3. Bollen, J., Gielen, A., & Timmer, H. (1999). Clubs, ceilings and CDM. The Energy Journal, Special Issue, The costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation, 177-206.
4. Bossier, F., Bracke, I., & Vanhorebeek F. (2004). Projection des émissions de gaz à effet de serre à l'horizon 2010 pour la Belgique, Federal Planning Bureau, Working Paper 9-04, Brussels.
5. 2 emissions in Europe. Energy Policy 23 (1995) 789-798
6. Boulanger, PM, Bréchet, Th., Brismé, Ch., Germain, M., Grandjean, G., Huppen, I., & Lussis B. (2004). Le Mécanisme pour un Développement Propre: Conception d'outils et mise en oeuvre. Final Report to the Belgian Scientific Support Plan for a Sustainable Development Policy under SPSD II, Institute for a Sustainable Development, Ottignies (http://www.iddweb.be).
7. Bréchet Th., and Lussis B. The contribution of the clean development mechanism to national climate policies: A modeling framework of the carbon market, Environmental Economics and Management Memorandum #28 (2005), CORE, Université catholique de Louvain
8. CDM Executive Board. Draft consolidated tool for demonstrating additionality. Annex to the report of the 15th Executive Board meeting (2004)
9. Chomitz K.M. Baseline, leakage and measurement issues: How do forestry and energy projects compare?. Climate Policy 2 (2002) 35-49
10. 2 emissions trading using marginal abatement curves, MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report 40, Cambridge, MA.
11. Eyckmans, J., Van Regemorter, D., & van Steenberghe, V. (2002). Is Kyoto fatally flawed?, FEEM Working Paper 43.
12. Geres R., and Michaelowa A. A qualitative method to consider leakage effects from CDM and JI projects. Energy Policy 30 (2002) 461-463
13. Gold Standard (2004). The Gold Standard Project Design Document: Main Document (available at http://www.cdmgoldstandard.org).
14. Golub A., and Strukova E. Russia and the GHG market. Climatic Change 63 (2004) 223-243
15. Heuberger R., Sutter Ch., and Imboden D. CDM Projects under the Kyoto Protocol of the UNFCCC: A methodology for sustainable development assessment and an application in South Africa (2003), Institute of Environmental Physics, Energy and Climate, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH)
16. Jahn M., Michaelowa A., Raubenheimer S., and Litow H. Unilateral CDM Chances and Pitfalls (2003), Deutsche Gesellschaft für technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ)
17. Jotzo F., and Michaelowa A. Estimating the CDM market under the Marrakech Accords. Climate Policy 82 (2002) 1-18
18. Kallbekken S., and Westskog H. Should developing countries take on binding commitments in a climate agreement? An assessment of gains and uncertainties. The Energy Journal 26 3 (2005) 41-60
19. Laurikka L. Absolute or relative baselines for JI/CDM projects in the energy sector?. Climate Policy 2 (2002) 19-33
20. Lazarus M., Kartha S., and Bernow S. Project baselines and boundaries for project-based GHG emission reduction trading: A report to the greenhouse gas emission trading pilot program (April 2001), Tellus Institute
21. Lussis, B. (2004). Le MDP unilatéral, Working paper, Institute for a Sustainable Development, Ottignies.
22. Michaelowa A., and Jotzo F. Transaction costs, institutional rigidities and the size of the clean development mechanism. Energy Policy 33 4 (2005) 511-523
23. Pan H. The cost efficiency of Kyoto flexible mechanisms: A top-down study with the GEM-E3 world model. Environmental Modeling & Software 20 11 (2005) 1401-1411
24. Sager J. An analysis with the CERT model of the FSU market power in the carbon emissions trading market. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 8 3 (2003) 219-238
25. UNFCCC (1997). The Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change.
26. UNFCCC. The Marrakech Accords and the Marrakech declaration: Decision 17/7 (2001), United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
27. Winkler, H., Thorne, S. (2002). Baselines for suppressed demand: CDM projects contribution to poverty alleviation, SouthNorth, February.
28. Zhang Z.X. Meeting the Kyoto targets: The importance of developing country participation. Journal of Policy Modeling 26 (2004) 3-19