Environmental and economic effects of the Copenhagen pledges and more ambitious emission reduction targets

Energy Policy

Volumn 39, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 3697-3708

  Peterson, Everett B ^a   Schleich, Joachim ^a,b,c   Duscha, Vicki ^b  

^a VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b FRAUNHOFER INSTITUTE FOR SYSTEMS AND INNOVATION RESEARCH ISI   (Germany)

^c GRENOBLE ECOLE DE MANAGEMENT   (France)

Author keywords

Climate policy; Copenhagen accord; Post kyoto

Indexed keywords

CLIMATE POLICY; COMPUTABLE GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM MODEL; COPENHAGEN; COPENHAGEN ACCORD; DEVELOPED COUNTRIES; ECONOMIC EFFECT; EMISSION REDUCTION; EMISSION TARGETS; ME-XICO; POLICY SCENARIO; POST-KYOTO; UPPER AND LOWER BOUNDS; WELFARE EFFECTS; WELFARE LOSS;

CARBON DIOXIDE; CLIMATE MODELS; COST ACCOUNTING;

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS;

CARBON EMISSION; COMPUTABLE GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS; DEVELOPING WORLD; ECONOMIC IMPACT; EMISSION CONTROL; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT; WELFARE IMPACT;

DENMARK; HOVEDSTADEN; KOBENHAVN [(RGG) HOVEDSTADEN];

EID: 79955934312     PISSN: 03014215     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.079     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Amann M., Cofala J., Rafaj P., Wagner F. The impact of the economic crisis on GHG mitigation potentials and costs in Annex I countries 2009, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA).
2. Bernard A., Vielle M. Assessment of European Union transition scenarios with a special focus on the issue of carbon leakage. Energy Economics 2009, 31:274-284.
3. Böhringer C., Löschel A. Climate policy beyond Kyoto: quo vadis? A computable general equilibrium analysis based on expert judgments. KYKLOS 2003, 58(4):467-493.
4. Böhringer C., Vogt C. Economic and environmental impacts of the Kyoto protocol. Canadian Journal of Economics 2003, 36(2):475-494.
5. Böhringer C., Löschel A., Moslener U., Rutherford T.F. EU climate policy up to 2020: an economic impact assessment. Energy Economics 2009, 31(S2):S295-S305.
6. Böhringer C., Rutherford T.F. The costs of compliance: a cge assessment of Canada's policy options under the Kyoto protocol. World Economy 2010, 33(2):177-211.
7. Burniaux, J.-M., Oliveira Martins, J., 2000. Carbon Emission Leakages: A General Equilibrium View, OECD Economics Department Working Paper 242.
8. Burniaux, J.-M., Truong, P., 2002. GTAP-E: An Energy-Environmental Version of the GTAP Model. GTAP Technical Paper No. 16 (Revised), January.
9. Dellink, R., Briner G., Clapp, C., 2010. Costs, Revenues, and Effectiveness of the Copenhagen Accord Emission Pledges for 2020, OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 22, OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/5km975plmzg6-en.
10. Den Elzen M.G.J., van Vuuren D.P, van Vliet J. Postponing emission reductions from 2020 to 2030 increases climate risks and long-term costs. Climatic Change 2010, 99(1):313-320.
11. Den Elzen M.G.J., Hof A.F., Mendoza Beltran M.A., Roelfsema M., van Ruijven B.J., van Vliet J., van Vuuren D.P., Höhne N., Moltmann S. The Copenhagen Accord: abatement costs and carbon prices resulting from the submissions. Environmental Science & Policy 2010, 10.1016/j.envsci.2010.10.010.
12. Den Elzen M.G.J., Roelfsema M., Slingerland S. Dealing with surplus emissions in the climate negotiations after Copenhagen: what are the options for compromise?. Energy Policy 2010, 38:6615-6628.
13. Den Elzen M.G.J., Höhne N. Reductions of greenhouse gas emissions in Annex I and non-Annex I countries for meeting concentration stabilisation targets: an editorial comment. Climate Change 2008, 91:249-274.
14. Duscha V., Graichen J., Healey S., Schleich J., Schumacher K Post-2012 climate regime: how industrial and developing nations can help to reduce emissions-emission trends, reduction potentials, incentive systems and negotiation options. Climate Change 2010, 12/10. 〈http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/uba-info-medien/index.htm〉.
15. Edenhofer O., Knopf B., Leimbach M., Baier.M. ADAM's modeling comparison project-intentions and prospects. Energy Journal 2010, 31:7-9. (Special Issue on The Economics of Low Stabilization).
16. European Commission, 2009a. Towards a Comprehensive Climate Change Agreement in Copenhagen. COM(2009) 39 final.
17. European Commission, 2009b. Towards a Comprehensive Climate Change Agreement in Copenhagen-Extensive Background Information and Analysis. Part 2. Commission Staff Working Document. SEC(2009), 101.
18. Gurney A., Ahammad H., Ford M. The economics of greenhouse gas mitigation: insights from illustrative global abatement scenarios modelling. Energy Economics 2009, 31(S2):S174-S186.
19. Gupta S., Tirpak D.A., Burger N., et al. Policies, instruments and co-operative arrangements. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (Eds.).
20. Hanslow, K., 2000. A General Welfare Decomposition for CGE Models. GTAP Technical Paper No. 19, Global Trade Analysis Project, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette.
21. 2010, Cambridge University Press. M. Hulme, H. Neufeldt (Eds.).
22. Ianchovichina, E., McDougall, R., 2001. Theoretical Structure of Dynamic GTAP. GTAP Technical Paper No. 17, Global Trade Analysis Project, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette.
23. Ianchovichina, E., Walmsley, T., (Eds.), Dynamic Modeling and Applications for Global Economic Analysis. Cambridge University Press, forthcoming.
24. Kemfert C. Estimated substitution elasticities of a nested CES production function for Germany. Energy Economics 1998, 20:249-264.
25. Kemfert, C., Schumacher, K., 2005. Costs of Inaction and Costs of Action in Climate Protection. DIW Berlin Final Report of Project FKZ 90441362 for the German Federal Ministry of the Environment.
26. Kemfert C., Truong T. Impact assessment of emissions stabilization scenarios with and without induced technological change. Energy Policy 2007, 35:5337-5345.
27. Kitous A., Criqui P., Bellevrat E., Chateau B. Transformation patterns of the worldwide energy system-scenarios for the century with the POLES model. Energy Journal 2010, 31:49-82. (Special Issue on The Economics of Low Stabilization).
28. Kuik O., Hofkes M. Border adjustment for European emissions trading: competitiveness and carbon leakage. Energy Policy 2010, 38:1741-1748.
29. Nijkamp P., Wang S., Kremers H. Modeling the impacts of international climate change policies in a CGE context: the use of the GTAP-E model. Economic Modelling 2005, 22:955-974.
30. Paltsev S. The Kyoto Protocol: regional and sectoral contributions to the carbon leakage. Energy Journal 2001, 22(4):53-79.
31. Peterson E., Lee H. Implications of Incorporating domestic margins into analyses of energy taxation and climate change. Economic Modelling 2009, 26(2):370-378.
32. Peterson, S., Klepper, G., 2007. Distribution Matters-Taxes vs. Emissions Trading in Post Kyoto Climate Regimes. Kiel Working Paper No. 1380, September.
33. Reinaud, J., 2008. Issues Behind Competitiveness and Carbon Leakage-Focus on Heavy Industry. IEA Information Paper. International Energy Agency, Paris.
34. Rogelj, J., Meinshausen, M., Nabel, J., et al., 2010. Copenhagen Accord Pledges are Paltry. Nature Report 464, pp. 1126-1128.
35. Stern N. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Report 2007, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
36. Stern, N., Taylor, C., 2010. What do the Appendices to the Copenhagen Accord tell us about Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Prospects for Avoiding a Rise in Global Average Temperature of More Than 2°C? Policy Paper, Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
37. UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), 2009. Copenhagen Accord. FCCC/CP/2009/L.7.
38. US EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency), 2009. EPA Analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 H.R. 2454 in the 111th Congress. 〈〉. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/economicanalyses.html.
39. Van Asselt H., Brewer T. Addressing competitiveness and leakage concerns in climate policy: an analysis of border adjustment measures in the US and the EU. Energy Policy 2010, 38:42-51.
40. Van der Werf Production functions for climate policy modelling: an empirical analysis. Energy Economics 2008, 30(2008):2964-2979.
41. Van Vuuren, D. P., Isaac, M., Kundzewicz, Z. W., Arnell, N., Barker, T., Criqui, P., Bauer, N., Berkhout, F., Hilderink, H., Hinkel, J., Hof, A., Kitous, A., Kram, T., Mechler, R., Radziejewski, M., Scrieciu, S., 2009. D-S.1b: Final Deliverable Scenario Workpackage. July 2009. 〈〉. http://adamproject.info/index.php/Download-document/471-D-S.1b.html.
42. Wagner F., Amann M. Analysis of the proposals for GHG reductions in 2020 made by UNFCCC Annex I countries by mid-August 2009 2009, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA).
43. Wicke, L., Schellnhuber, H.-J., Klingenfeld, D., 2010. Nach Kopenhagen: Neue Strategie zum Realisieren des 2°-Max Klimazieles. PIK Report 116. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research PIK, Potsdam.