Limitations of single-basket trading: lessons from the Montreal Protocol for climate policy
- 1.2k Downloads
Numerous policy options exist to reduce future greenhouse gas emissions. A single-basket approach, which controls aggregate emissions, was adopted by the Kyoto Protocol. Such an approach allows emissions reductions of one gas to be traded with those of other gases in the “basket”, with the trade “price” determined by some weighting metric like the Global Warming Potential. To reduce stratospheric ozone depletion, the Montreal Protocol also dealt with controlling many compounds, but did so employing an alternative, multi-basket scheme. Trading was allowed within each basket, but not among baskets. While the Montreal Protocol has been highly successful using this approach, we show that if a single-basket approach had been adopted the short-term success could have been at risk due to the non-unique relationship between controls and environmental impacts when using a single basket. Using climate policy as an example, and without considering technological and economic constraints, we further show that the magnitude of the ambiguities in impacts associated with a single-basket approach depends on the rapidity of the emission phaseout. Fast phaseouts lead to less ambiguity than do slow ones. These results suggest that for each set of greenhouse gas control policies considered, the benefit of additional flexibility associated with a single-basket approach should be weighed against the associated increased uncertainties in the impacts to ascertain whether a single- or a multi-basket approach has the greater chance of successfully mitigating climate change.
KeywordsOzone Emission Reduction Climate Policy Kyoto Protocol Stratospheric Ozone
We thank G.-K. Plattner for providing the Bern carbon cycle model to us and for participating in many helpful discussions regarding its use. JSD and SS acknowledge funding from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Atmospheric Composition and Climate Program. JSF’s contribution was funded by the Norwegian Research Council within the project “Climate and health impacts of Short-Lived Atmospheric Components (SLAC)”.
- Harvey LD (2000) Global warming: the hard science. Pearson Education Limited, EssexGoogle Scholar
- IPCC (1990) Climate change: the IPCC scientific assessment. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- IPCC (2009) Meeting report of the expert meeting on the science of alternative metrics. IPCC Working Group I Technical Support Unit, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.Google Scholar
- Newman PA, Oman LD, Douglass AR, Fleming EL, Frith SM, Hurwitz MM, Kawa SR, Jackman CH, Krotkov NA, Nash ER, Nielsen JE, Pawson S, Stolarski RS, Velders GJM (2009) What would have happened to the ozone layer if chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) had not been regulated. Atmos Chem Phys 9:2113–2128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Smith SJ, Wigley TML (2006) Multi-gas forcing stabilization with Minicam. Energ J:373–391.Google Scholar
- WMO (2007) Scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 2006. Global ozone research and monitoring project, report #50, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar