Climatic Change

, Volume 71, Issue 1–2, pp 75–115 | Cite as

Valueloading And Uncertainty In A Sector-based Differentiation Scheme For Emission Allowances

  • Heleen GroenenbergEmail author
  • Jeroen Van Der Sluijs


The Triptych approach is a sectoral approach for differentiation of quantitative greenhouse gas emission reduction objectives. In this study we investigate the ranges in emission reduction targets that result from differences in valueladen assumptions and uncertainties in input data and parameters. In order to assess the effect of highly valueladen assumptions on resulting objectives we used two approaches. First we performed a sensitivity analysis. Then we elaborated the approach from four ideal-typical value-orientations: the administrator, the businessman, the campaigner and the survivor. For each of these value-orientations we specified corresponding sets of assumptions of highly valueladen parameters. Within each set, we also assessed uncertainties for the remaining parameters and input data. We assessed the strength and we quantified their inexactnesses with probability distribution functions. Next, we carried out Monte Carlo simulations in each of the four value-orientations to quantify error propagation from the inexactnesses in input data and parameters. We found targets for the year 2015 for Annex I countries differed up to around 20%-points over the four value-orientations. For developing countries differences in allowances were found up to the order of four. In addition, results are affected to a large extent by uncertainties in the other input data and parameters. Ranges in the outcome resulting from uncertainties are between 10 and 35%-points for Annex I countries, depending on the value-orientation chosen and between 20 and 120%-points for non-Annex I countries. However, the ranking of countries within the calculated differentiation remains roughly the same, an exception being the ranking that resulted from the businessman’s perspective. Other consistent combinations of valueladen assumptions may result in objectives that are outside the range that we based on the four value-orientations. We concluded that care should be taken when assessing valueloading in calculations schemes for emissions objectives based on a limited number of value-orientations only. Our analysis clearly underlines the relevance of making explicit policy variables in schemes for the differentiation of commitments. It is necessary to reach consensus on these variables if such schemes are to support negotiations on greenhouse gas emissions allowances.


Input Data Monte Carlo Simulation Emission Reduction Probability Distribution Function Policy Variable 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baer, P.: 1998, “Cultural Theory” and its Application in Environmental Risk Perception. Working paper. Energy and Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  2. Baumert, K. A., Bhandar, R., and Kete, N.: 1999, What might a developing country climate commitment look like?, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  3. Berk, M., Hisschemöller, M., Mol, T., Hordijk, L., Kok, M., and Metz, B.: 2001, Strategieën voor langetermijn klimaatbeleid, de resultaten van het COOL-project, Nationaal Programma Mondiale Luchtverontreiniging en Klimaatverandering (NOP-II), Bilthoven, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  4. Blanchard, O., Criqui, C., Trommetter, M., and Vinguier, L.: 2001, 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 (IEPE), Grenoble, France.Google Scholar
  5. Blok, K., Phylipsen, G. J. M., and Bode, J. W.: 1997, The Triptique Approach. Burden Differentiation of CO2 Emission Reduction Among European Union Member States, Utrecht University, Department of Science, Technology and Society, Zeist, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  6. Banuri, T., Göran-Mäler, K., Grubb, M., Jacobson, H. K., and Yamin, F.: 1996, ‘Equity and social considerations’, in Bruce, J. P., Lee, H., and Haites, E. F. (eds.), Climate Change 1995 – Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  7. Boholm, A.: 1996, ‘Risk perception and social anthropology: Critique of cultural theory’, Ethnos 61, 64–84.Google Scholar
  8. Boyle, R. P. and Coughlin, R. M.:1994, ‘Conceptualizing and operationalizing cultural theory’, in Coyle, D. J. and Ellis, R. J. (eds.), Politics, Policy and Culture, Westview Press, Boulder.Google Scholar
  9. den Elzen, M. G. J., Berk, M. M., Both, S., and Metz, B.: 2000, FAIR 1.0 (Framework to Assess International Regimes for differentiation of commitments): An interactive model to explore options for differentiation of future commitments in international climate policy making, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  10. Douglas, M.: 1982, Essays in the Sociology of Perception, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., London, Boston and Henley.Google Scholar
  11. Funtowicz, S. O. and Ravetz, J. R.: 1990, Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  12. Groenenberg, H.: 2002, Development and Convergence. A Bottom-Up Analysis for the Differentiation of Commitments under the Climate Convention. Thesis. Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  13. Groenenberg, H., Blok, K., and van der Sluijs, J. P.: 2005, ‘Global Triptych: A bottom-up approach for the differentiation of commitments under the Climate Convention’, Climate Policy 4, 153–175.Google Scholar
  14. Groenenberg, H., Phylipsen, D., and Blok, K.: 2001: ‘Differentiating commitments world wide: Global differentiation of GHG emissions reductions based on the Triptych approach – A preliminary assessment’, Energy Policy 29, 1007–1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gupta, J.: 1999, ‘North–South aspects of the climate change issue: Towards a constructive negotiating package for developing countries’, Reciel 8, 198–208.Google Scholar
  16. Gupta, J., van der Werff, P., Gagnon-Lebrun, F., and van Dijk, I.: 2001, Bridging Interest, Classification and Technology Gaps in the Climate Change Regime, IVAM Environmental Research UvA BV and Institute of Environmental Sciences, Free University, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  17. Houghton, J. T., Meira Filho, L. G., Lim, B., Treanton, K., Mamaty, I., Bonduki, B., Griggs, D. J., and Callender, B. A. (eds.): 1996, Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, UK Meteorological Office, Bracknell, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  18. IEA: 1997a, CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion 1972–1995, International Energy Agency, Paris.Google Scholar
  19. IEA: 1997b, Energy Statistics and Balances of Non-OECD Countries 1971–1995, International Energy Agency, Paris.Google Scholar
  20. IEA: 1998, Electricity Information 1997, International Energy Agency, Paris.Google Scholar
  21. IMAGE team: 2001, The IMAGE 2.2 implementation of the SRES scenarios: A Comprehensive Analysis of Emissions, Climate Change and Impacts in the 21st Century, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  22. Keilman, N.: 1997, ‘Ex-post errors in official population forecasts in industrialized countries’, J. Official Statistics 13, 245–277.Google Scholar
  23. Lutz, W.: 1996, The Future Population of the World: What Can We Assume Today? 2nd edition, Earthscan, London.Google Scholar
  24. Meyer, A.: 2000, Contraction & Convergence. The Global Solution to Climate Change, Green Books, Bristol, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  25. Morgan, M. G. and Henrion, M.: 1990, Uncertainty, a Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  26. Müller, B.: 2001, ‘Varieties of distributive justice in climate change’, Climatic Change 48, 273–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nakićenović, N. et al. (eds.): 2000, Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  28. Olivier, J. G. J., Bouwman, A. F., van der Maas, C. W. M., Berdowski, J. J. M., Veldt, C., Bloos, J. P. J., Visschedijk, A. J. H., Zandveld, P. Y. J., and Haverlag, J. L.: 1996, Description of EDGAR Version 2.0: A set of global emission inventories of greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances for all anthropogenic and most natural sources on a per country bases on 1°×1° grid, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  29. Philibert, C.: 2001a, ‘Evolution of mitigation commitments: Certainly versus stringency’, International Energy Agency, Vienna.Google Scholar
  30. Philibert, C.: 2001b, ‘Evolution of mitigation commitments: Fixed targets versus more flexible architectures’, International Energy Agency, Vienna.Google Scholar
  31. Philibert, C. and Pershing, J.: 2001, ‘Considering the options: Climate targets for all countries’, Climate Policy 1, 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Phylipsen, G. J. M., Bode, J. W., Blok, K., Merkus, H., and Metz, B.: 1998, ‘A Triptych sectoral approach to burden differentiation; GHG emissions in the European bubble’, Energy Policy 26, 929–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ravetz, J. R.: 2001, ‘Models of risks: An exploration’, in Dunn W. N., Hisschemoller, M., Hoppe, R., and Ravetz, J. R. (eds.), Knowledge, Power, and Participation in Environmental Policy Analysis, Special Issue Policy Studies Review Annual, pp. 471–492.Google Scholar
  34. Ringius, L.: 1999, ‘Differentiation, leaders, and fairness: Negotiating climate commitments in the European Community’, International Negotiations 4, 133–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ringius, L., Torvanger, A., and Underdal, A.: 2000, Burden Differentiation: fairness Principles and Proposals: The Joint CICERO-ECN Project on Sharing the Burden of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Among Countries, Energy research Centre of the Netherlands, Petten and Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research – Oslo.Google Scholar
  36. Ringius, L., Torvanger, A., and Underdal, A.: 2002, ‘Burden sharing and fairness principles in international climate policy’, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 2, 1–22.Google Scholar
  37. Risbey, J., Van der Sluijs, J. P., and Ravetz, J.: 2001, A protocol for assessment of uncertainty and strength of emissions data, Department of Science, Technology and Society, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  38. Rose, A.: 1992, ‘Equity considerations of tradeable carbon emission entitlements’, in Combating Global Warming. Study on a Global System of Tradeable Carbon Emission Entitlements, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, New York.Google Scholar
  39. Rotmans, J. and de Vries, B. (eds.): 1997, Perspsectives on Global Change: The TARGETS Approach, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  40. Schwarz, M. and Thompson, M.: 1990, Divided We Stand. Redefining Politics, Technology and Social Choice, Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York.Google Scholar
  41. Sijm, J., Jansen, J., and Torvanger, A.: 2001, ‘Differentiation of mitigation commitments: The multi-Sector convergence approach’, Climate Policy 1, 481–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sjöberg, L.: 1997, ‘Explaining risk perception: An empirical evaluation of cultural theory’, Risk Decision and Policy 2, 113–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Van der Sluijs, J. and Kloprogge, P.: 2001, ‘The inclusion of stakeholder perspectives in integrated assessment of climate change,’ in Decker, J. (ed.), Interdisciplinarity in technoogy assessment. Implementations and their chances and limits. Series: “Wissenschaftsethik un technikfolgenbeurteiling”, Vol. 11, pp. 199–214, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, New York.Google Scholar
  44. Van der Sluijs, J. P.: 2001, ‘Integrated assessment models and the participatory challenge. The case of climate change’, in Dunn W. N., Hisschemoller, M., Hoppe, R., and Ravetz, J. R. (eds.), Knowledge, Power, and Participation in Environmental Policy Analysis, special issue Policy Studies Review Annual, pp. 317–348.Google Scholar
  45. Van der Sluijs, J. P., Hisschemoller, M., de Boer, J., and Kloprogge, P.: 2002, ‘Climate risk assessment, evaluation of approaches’, Summary and synthesis report. NRP report, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  46. Stirling, A. and Mayer, S.: 2001, ‘A novel approach to the appraisal of technological risk: A multicriteria mapping study of a genetically modified crop’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 19, 529–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thompson, M., Ellis, R., and Wildavsky, A.: 1990, Cultural Theory, Westview Press, Boulder, San Francisco and Oxford.Google Scholar
  48. Trisoglio, A.: 1995, Plurality and Political Culture: A Response to Thompson and Drake, paper presented at workshop “Risk, Policy and Complexity”, 7–9 August 1995, IIASA, Laxenburg.Google Scholar
  49. Turkenburg, W. C. and van der Sluijs, J. P.: 2000, Review van het RIVM instrumentarium voor de totstandkoming van lange termijn prognoses met betrekking tot de emissies van broeikasgassen, Department of Science, Technology and Society, Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  50. UN: 1998, World Population Projections to 2150, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Populations Division, New York.Google Scholar
  51. WEC: 1995, Energy Efficiency Improvement Utilising High Technology. An Assessment of Energy Use in Industry and Buildings, World Energy Council, London.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Prospective Technological StudiesEdificio Expo, C/Inca GarcilasoSevilleSpain
  2. 2.Copernicus InstituteUtrecht UniversityThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations