European burden sharing post-2012

Intereconomics

Volumn 42, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 72-77

  Bode, Sven ^a  

^a Arrhenius Institute for Energy and Climate Policy   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34247361258     PISSN: 00205346     EISSN: 1613964X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. EU Council: Community Strategy On Climate Change Council Conclusions, CFSP Presidency statement, Luxembourg (25/6/1996) Press: 188 No: 8518/ 96.
2. EU Council: Community Strategy On Climate Change Council Conclusions, CFSP Presidency statement, Brussels (3/3/1997) Press: 60 No: 6309/97.
3. At the same time an increase in the share of renewable energies in the EU was also agreed. Although directly linked to climate policy, this target is not discussed in this paper for capacity reasons. The improvement of energy effficiency is also not considered here, though it is of crucial importance.
4. Axel Michaelowa, Regina B e t z: Implications of EU Enlargement on the EU Greenhouse Gas "Bubble" and Internal Burden Sharing, in: International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Vol. 1, 2001, pp. 267-279, here p. 278.
5. Mercedes Fernaández Armenteros, Axel Michaelowa: Joint implementation and EU accession countries, in: Global Environmental Change, Vol. 13, 2003, pp. 269-275, here p. 271.
6. Cohesion countries at that time were Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain, which were low-income countries within the EU.
7. To give an example, in March 1997 an agreement was found which foresaw a reduction of 30% for Luxembourg as the strictest target while on the other hand Portugal was allowed to increase emissions by 40%. This in turn led to condemnations by other OECD countries as the EU was calling for equal reduction obligations for other parties (cf. Michael Grubb, Christian Vrolijk, Duncan Brack: The Kyoto Protocol A Guide and Assessment, London 1999
8. Joyeeta Gupta, Lasse Ringuis: The EU's Climate Leadership: Reconciling Ambition and Reality, in: International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Vol. 1, 2001, pp. 281-299). In the end the EU accepted a target of minus 8% and the so-called "bubble" (Art. 4) found its way into the Kyoto Protocol.
9. Axel Michaelowa, Regina Betz, op. cit., p. 268.
10. G. J. M. Dian Phylipsen, Jan Wilhem Bode, Kornelius Blok, Bernd Me z: A Triptych sectoral approach to burden differentiation
11. GHG emissions in the European bubble, in: Energy Policy, Vol. 26, No. 12, 1998, pp. 929-943.
12. Ibid., p. 939.
13. Axel Michaelowa, Regina Betz, op. cit., p. 269.
14. Note that absolute. gures for abatement costs strongly depend on the baseline assumptions. Figures given above are to show the difference among member states only.
15. Kornelius Blok, David de Jager, Chris Hendriks: Economic Evaluation of Sectoral Emission Reduction Objectives for Climate Change Summary Report for Policy Makers, 2001, http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ enveco/ [06.11.03].
16. See for example Jens Hauch: Electricity trade and CO2 emission reductions in the Nordic countries, in: Energy Economics, Vol. 25, 2003, pp. 509-526, here p. 517, who writes that "national emission targets that imply equal marginal costs internationally can be seen as one fair international sharing of reduction costs."
17. One the other hand Dessai et al. (Suraje Dessai, Axel Michaelowa: Burden sharing and cohesion countries in the European climate policy: The Portuguese example, in: Climate Policy, Vol. 1, 2001, pp. 327-341, here p. 333) present a table which is labelled with "Emission change until 2010 under a fair burden sharing rule..." and which provides data on equal burden per unit of GDP and equal marginal cost.
18. Sven Bode: European Climate Policy: Burden Sharing after 2012, HWWA Discussion Paper No. 265, 2004.
19. 2042 is chosen as it is 50 years after the Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted in Rio in 1992.
20. At this point it is only worthwhile to mention that an allocation of emission rights on the global scale based on equal emissions per capita has been supported by different European (and non-European) policy makers (cf. Meyer: Contraction & Convergence, Dartington 2000, Green Book Ltd.)
21. Adam Rose, Brandt Stevens, Jae Edmonds, Marshall Wise: International equity and differentiation in global warming policy, in: Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 12, 1998, pp. 25-51, here p. 30.
22. Toke Aidt, Sandra Greiner: Sharing the climate policy burden in the EU, HWWA Discussion Paper No. 176, 2002, p. 13.
23. Odile Blanchard, Patrick Criqui, Michel Trommetter, Laurant Viguier: Equity and efficiency in climate change negotiations: A scenario for world emission entitlements by 2030, Cahier de Recherche No. 26, Institut d'economie et de politique de l'energie, Grenoble 2001.
24. For example, Tobias F. N. Schmidt, Henrike Koschel: Climate Change Policy and Burden Sharing in the European Union Applying alternative equity rules to a CGE-framework, ZEW Discussion Paper No. 98-12, 1998.
25. Sven Bode: Equal Emissions per Capita over Time A proposal to Combine Responsibility and Equity of Rights for Post-2012 GHG Emission Entitlement Allocation, in: European Environment, Vol. 14, 2004, pp. 300-316.
26. For equations see ibid.
27. While the total budget for the EU is always the same.
28. At least for the three options reviewed here.
29. In case banking of entitlements is allowed they also have to be considered.
30. Cf. for example IPCC: Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Electronic Version, CDrom] 2000
31. Zhong Xiang Zhang: The economic effects of an alternative EU emission policy, in: Journal of Policy Modelling, Vol. 24, 2002, pp. 667-677.
32. Lasse Ringius: Differentiation, Leaders and Fairness Negotiating Climate Commitments in the European Community, CICERO Report 1997:8, here p. 35.