Impact of fragmented emission reduction regimes on the energy market and on CO2 emissions related to land use: A case study with China and the European Union as first movers

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

Volumn 90, Issue PA, 2015, Pages 220-229

  Otto, Sander A C ^a   Gernaat, David E H J ^a   Isaac, Morna ^a   Lucas, Paul L ^b   van Sluisveld, Mariësse A E ^a   van den Berg, Maarten ^b   van Vliet, Jasper ^b   van Vuuren, Detlef P ^a,b  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b PBL NETHERLANDS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AGENCY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Bio energy; Carbon leakage; Climate change; Energy market; Fragmented policy; Land use emissions

Indexed keywords

CARBON DIOXIDE; CLIMATE CHANGE; COMMERCE; EMISSION CONTROL; ENERGY POLICY; FORESTRY;

BIO-ENERGY; CARBON LEAKAGE; EMISSION REDUCTION; EMISSION REDUCTION TARGETS; ENERGY MARKETS; EUROPEAN UNION; HEAVY INDUSTRIES; LAND-USE CHANGE;

LAND USE;

CARBON DIOXIDE; CARBON EMISSION; EMISSION CONTROL; ENERGY MARKET; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; EUROPEAN UNION; LAND USE CHANGE; POLICY APPROACH; POLICY MAKING;

CHINA;

EID: 84916933924     PISSN: 00401625     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2014.01.015     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Clarke L., Edmonds J., Krey V., Richels R., Rose S., Tavoni M. International climate policy architectures: overview of the EMF 22 international scenarios. Energy Econ. 2009, 31(Suppl. 2):S64-S81.
2. Hof A.F., Den Elzen M.G.J., Van Vuuren D.P. Environmental effectiveness and economic consequences of fragmented versus universal regimes: what can we learn from model studies?. Int. Environ. Agreements Polit. Law Econ. 2009, 9(1):39-62.
3. Metz B., Berk M., Den Elzen M., De Vries B., Van Vuuren D. Towards an equitable global climate change regime: compatibility with Article 2 of the Climate Change Convention and the link with sustainable development. Clim. Pol. 2002, 2(2-3):211-230.
4. Azar C. Post-Kyoto climate policy targets: costs and competitiveness implications. Clim. Pol. 2005, 5(3):309-328.
5. Babiker M.H. Climate change policy, market structure, and carbon leakage. J. Int. Econ. 2005, 65(2):421-445.
6. Boehringer C., Fischer C., Rosendahl K.E. The global effects of subglobal climate policies. B.E. J. Econ. Anal. Policy 2010, 10(2).
7. Boeters S., Bollen J. Fossil fuel supply, leakage and the effectiveness of border measures in climate policy. Energy Econ. 2012, 34(Suppl.2):S181-S189.
8. 2 emissions limits: economic adjustments and the distribution of burdens. Energy J. 1997, 18(3):31-58.
9. Rao S., Keppo I., Riahi K. Importance of technological change and spillovers in long-term climate policy. Energy J. 2006, 27:123-139. (SPEC. ISS. MAR.).
10. Kriegler E., Riahi K., Bauer N., Schwanitz J., Petermann N., Bosetti V, et al. Making or breaking climate targets: The AMPERE study on staged accession scenarios for climate policy. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2015, 90:24-44.
11. Bouwman A.F., Kram T., Klein Goldewijk K. Integrated modelling of global environmental change. An Overview of IMAGE 2.4 2006.
12. OECD OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050. The Consequences of Inaction 2012, OECD Publishing.
13. UN World Population Prospects: the 2010 Revision. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division 2011, (CD-ROM edition).
14. Kriegler E., Mouratiadou I., Luderer G., Bauer N., Calvin K., DeCian E., et al. Roadmaps Towards Sustainable Energy Futures and Climate Protection: A Synthesis of Results From the RoSE Project 2013, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam. 1st edition.
15. Bertram C., Johnson N., Luderer G., Riahi K., Isaac M., Eom J. Carbon lock-in through capital stock inertia associated with weak near-term climate policies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2015, 90:62-72.
16. Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Section11.7.2 Carbon Leakage 2007, Cambridge University Press. B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (Eds.).
17. 2 emission mitigation and fossil fuel markets: dynamic and international aspects of climate policies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2015, 90:243-256.
18. Murray B.C., McCarl B.A., Lee H. Estimating leakage from forest carbon sequestration programs. Land Econ. 2004, 80(1):109-124.
19. Wicke B., Verweij P., Van Meijl H., Van Vuuren D.P., Faaij A.P.C. Indirect land use change: review of existing models and strategies for mitigation. Biofuels 2012, 3(1):87-100.
20. Searchinger T., Heimlich R., Houghton R.A., Dong F., Elobeid A., Fabiosa J., et al. Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 2008, 319(5867):1238-1240.
21. Gibbs H.K., Johnston M., Foley J.A., Holloway T., Monfreda C., Ramankutty N., et al. Carbon payback times for crop-based biofuel expansion in the tropics: the effects of changing yield and technology. Environ. Res. Lett. 2008, 3(3).
22. Van Minnen J.G., Strengers B., Eickhout B. Simulating carbon exchange between the terrestrial biosphere and the atmosphere in: MNP (2006). An Overview of IMAGE 2.4. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP) 2006, 123. A.F. Bouwman, T. Kram, K. Klein Goldewijk (Eds.).
23. 2 equivalent in the 21st century. Energy Econ. 2009, 31(Suppl. 2):S107-S120.
24. 2 concentrations for land use and energy. Science 2009, 324(5931):1183-1186.
25. 2 emissions from land use change - forest conservation as a precondition for sustainable production of second generation bioenergy. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 74:64-70.
26. Havlík P., Schneider U.A., Schmid E., Böttcher H., Fritz S., Skalský R., et al. Global land-use implications of first and second generation biofuel targets. Energy Policy 2011, 39(10):5690-5702.