Exploring the bargaining space within international climate negotiations based on political, economic and environmental considerations

Energy Policy

Volumn 39, Issue 11, 2011, Pages 7361-7371

  Mendoza Beltran, Angelica ^a   den Elzen, Michel G J ^a   Hof, Andries F ^a   van Vuuren, Detlef P ^a,b   van Vliet, Jasper ^a  

^a PBL NETHERLANDS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AGENCY   (Netherlands)

^b UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Abatement costs; Copenhagen accord; Two degree target

Indexed keywords

ABATEMENT COSTS; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS; COPENHAGEN; EMISSION LEVEL; EMISSION REDUCTION; ENERGY SYSTEM MODEL; ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS; REDUCTION TARGETS; TWO DEGREE TARGET;

GLOBAL WARMING;

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS;

ABATEMENT COST; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; GLOBAL WARMING; NUMERICAL MODEL;

EID: 80054872989     PISSN: 03014215     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.08.065     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Anger, N., Sathaye, J.A., 2008. Reducing Deforestation and Trading Emissions: Economic Implications for the post-Kyoto Carbon Market. Discussion Paper No. 08-016, Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW), Mannheim, Germany. ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp08016.pdf.
2. Amann, M., Rafaj, P., Höhne, N., 2009. GHG Mitigation Potentials in Annex I Countries. Comparison of Model Estimates for 2020. IR-09-034, September, IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria.
3. Bouwman, A.F., Kram, T., Klein Goldewijk, K., 2006. Integrated Modelling of Global Environmental Change. An Overview of IMAGE 2.4. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, available at:, Bilthoven, The Netherlands. http://www.mnp.nl/en.
4. Bosetti, V., Lubowski, R., Golub, A., Markandya, A., 2011. Linking reduced deforestation and a global carbon market: implications for clean energy technology and policy flexibility. Environment and Development Economics, 1-27.
5. Busch J., Strassburg B., Cattaneo A., et al. Comparing climate and cost impacts of reference levels for reducing emissions from deforestation. Environmental Research Letters 2009, 11.
6. Clarke L., Edmonds J., Krey V., Richels R., Rose S., Tavoni M. International climate policy architectures: overview of the EMF 22 International Scenarios. Energy Economics 2009, 31(2):S64-S81.
7. Criqui, P., 2002. GECS Final Report Section 6: Detail report. GECS-Research Project No EVK2-CT-1999-00010, Thematic Programme: Environment and Sustainable Development, DG Research Fifth Framework Programme, CNRS-IEPE, Grenoble.
8. 2 emission reductions, geographical flexibility and concrete ceilings: an assessment using the POLES model. Energy Policy 1999, 27(10):585-601.
9. Dellink R., Briner G., Clapp C. Costs, Revenues, and Effectiveness of the Copenhagen Accord Emission Pledges for 2020, OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 22 2010, OECD Publishing.
10. den Elzen M.G.J., Hof A.F., Beltran A.M., Grassi G., Roelfsema M., van Ruijven B.J., van Vliet J., van Vuuren D.P. The copenhagen accord: abatement costs and carbon prices resulting from the submissions. Environmental Science & Policy 2011, 14:28-39.
11. den Elzen M.G.J., Hof A.F., Roelfsema M. The emissions gap between the Copenhagen pledges and the 2°C climate goal: options for closing and risks that could widen the gap. Global Environmental Change 2011, 21(2):733-743.
12. 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. Climatic Change 2008, 91(3-4):249-274.
13. Eliasch, J., 2008. Eliasch Review: Climate Change: Financing Global Forests Office of Climate Change (OCC), London, UK, available at: http://www.occ.gov.uk.
14. Enerdata, 2010. POLES Model Marginal Abatement Cost Curves (MACCs) based on the World Energy Outlook 2009, Enerdata, Grenoble, France, see: http://www.enerdata.net/enerdatauk/subscriptions/marginal-abatement-cost-curves-MACCs.php.
15. Edenhofer O., Knopf B., Barker T., Baumstark L., Bellevrat E., et al. The economics of low stabilization: model comparison of mitigation strategies and costs. The Energy Journal 2010, 31:11-48.
16. European Council, 2011. Council conclusions: Follow-up to the Cancún Conference 3075th ENVIRONMENT Council meeting Brussels, 14 March.
17. Fankhauser S., Martin N. The economics of the CDM levy: revenue potential, tax incidence and distortionary effects. Energy Policy 2010, 38:357-363.
18. 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.).
19. IEA, International Energy Agency, 2007. World Energy Outlook 2007. Paris, France.
20. IEA, International Energy Agency, 2009. World Energy Outlook 2009. Paris, France.
21. IMF, International Monetary Fund, 2009. World Economic Outlook. Contractionary Forces Receding But Weak Recovery Ahead. Update July 8, Washington, DC.
22. Jotzo F., Michaelowa A. Estimating the CDM market under the Marrakech Accords. Climate Policy 2002, 2:179-196.
23. Karousakis K., Corfee-Morlot J. Financing mechanisms to reduce emissions from deforestation: issues in design and implementation. COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2007)7 2007, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/International Energy Agency, Paris, France.
24. Klepper G., Peterson S. Marginal abatement cost curves in general equilibrium: the influence of world energy prices. Resource and Energy Economics 2006, 28(1):1-23.
25. Knopf B., Edenhofer O., Flachsland C., Kok M.T.J., Lotze-Campen H., Luderer G., Popp A., van Vuuren D. Managing the low-carbon transition-from model results to policies. The Energy Journal Special Issue, The Economics of Low Stabilization 2010, 31:223-245.
26. Kindermann G., Obersteiner M., Sohngen B., et al. Global cost estimates of reducing carbon emissions through avoided deforestation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2008, 105(30):10302-10307.
27. 2 greenhouse gases. Environmental Science & Policy 2007, 10(2):85-103.
28. Meinshausen M., Hare W.L., Wigley T.M.L., van Vuuren D.P., den Elzen M.G.J., Swart R. Multi-gas emission pathways to meet climate targets. Climatic Change 2006, 75(1-2):151-194.
29. Metz B., Berk M., den Elzen M.G.J., De Vries B., Van Vuuren D.P. Towards an equitable global climate change regime: compatibility with Article 2 of the Climate Change Convention and the link with sustainable development. Climate Policy 2002, 2:211-230.
30. Metz B., Davidson O.R., Bosch P.R., Dave R., Meyer L.A. 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.
31. Michaelowa A., Jotzo F. Transaction costs, institutional rigidities and the size of the clean development mechanism. Energy Policy 2005, 33(4):511-523.
32. O'Neill B.C., Riahi K., Keppo I. Mitigation implications of midcentury targets that preserve long-term climate policy options. PNAS 2009, 107(3):1011-1016.
33. Peterson E.B., Schleich J., Duscha V. Environmental and economic effects of the Copenhagen pledges and more ambitious emission reduction targets. Energy Policy 2011, (39)).
34. Rogelj J., Meinshausen M., Nabel J., Chen C., Hare W., Markmann K., Schaeffer M., Macey K., Höhne N. Copenhagen Accord pledges are paltry. Nature Report 2010, 464:1126-1128.
35. 2 emission reduction: the soft landing scenario analysed with POLES and other world models. Energy Policy 2007, 35786-35796.
36. Russ P., Van Ierland T. Insights on different participation schemes to meet climate goals. Energy Economics 2009, 31(Suppl. 2):S163-S173.
37. UNEP, United Nations Environment Programme, 2010. The Emissions Gap Report: Are the Copenhagen Accord Pledges Sufficient to Limit Global Warming to 2°C or 1.5°C? http://www.unep.org/publications/ebooks/emissionsgapreport/.
38. UNFCCC, 2011. Decision 1/CP.16. The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention. Available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01.pdf.
39. UNFCCC, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1992. United Nations General Assembly. Nations, New York, N.Y., USA. http://www.unfccc.int/resourcesUnited.
40. van Vuuren D.P., Riahi K. The relationship between short-term emissions and long-term concentration targets-a letter. Climatic Change 2011, 104:793-801.
41. van Vuuren, D.P., Stehfest, E., den Elzen, M.G.J., Kram, T., van Vliet, J., Deetman, S., Isaac, M., Klein Goldewijk, K., Hof, A., Mendoza Beltran, A., Oostenrijk, R., van Ruijven, B. RCP2.6: a pathway to explore the possibility to keep global mean temperature increase below 2°C. Climatic Change, in press.
42. van Vuuren D.P., Hoogwijk M., Barker T., et al. Comparison of top-down and bottom-up estimates of sectoral and regional greenhouse gas emission reduction potentials. Energy Policy 2009, 37(12):5125-5139.
43. van Vuuren D.P., den Elzen M.G.J., Eickhout B., Lucas P.L., Strengers B.J., Ruijven B., Wonink S., van Houdt R. Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at low levels: an assessment of reduction strategies and costs. Climatic Change 2007, 81(2):119-159.
44. van Vuuren D.P., de Vries H.J.M., Eickhout B., Kram T. Responses to Technology and Taxes in a Simulated World. Energy Economics 2004, 26:579-601.