Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 62, Issue 4, pp 811–836 | Cite as

The Stability and Effectiveness of Climate Coalitions

A Comparative Analysis of Multiple Integrated Assessment Models
  • Kai Lessmann
  • Ulrike Kornek
  • Valentina Bosetti
  • Rob Dellink
  • Johannes Emmerling
  • Johan Eyckmans
  • Miyuki Nagashima
  • Hans-Peter Weikard
  • Zili Yang
Article

Abstract

We report results from a comparison of numerically calibrated game theoretic integrated assessment models that explore the stability and performance of international coalitions for climate change mitigation. We identify robust results concerning the incentives of different nations to commit themselves to a climate agreement and estimate the extent of greenhouse gas mitigation that can be achieved by stable agreements. We also assess the potential of transfers that redistribute the surplus of cooperation to foster the stability of climate coalitions. In contrast to much of the existing analytical game theoretical literature, we find substantial scope for self-enforcing climate coalitions in most models that close much of the abatement and welfare gap between complete absence of cooperation and full cooperation. This more positive message follows from the use of appropriate transfer schemes that are designed to counteract free riding incentives.

Keywords

Coalition stability International environmental agreements  Numerical modeling Transfers 

Supplementary material

10640_2015_9886_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (215 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 216 KB)

References

  1. Altamirano-Cabrera J, Finus M (2006) Permit trading and stability of international climate agreements. J Appl Econ 9(1):19–47Google Scholar
  2. Barrett S (1994) Self-enforcing international environmental agreements. Oxf Econ Pap 46:878–894Google Scholar
  3. Barrett S (2001) International cooperation for sale. Eur Econ Rev 45(10):1835–1850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benchekroun H, Long N (2012) Collaborative environmental management: a review of the literature. Int Game Theory Rev 14(4):1240,002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bosetti V, De Cian E (2013) A good opening: the key to make the most of unilateral climate action. Environ Resour Econ 55:44–56Google Scholar
  6. Bosetti V, Carraro C, Galeotti M, Massetti E, Tavoni M (2006) WITCH: a world induced technical change hybrid Energy J 27(Special Issue 2):13–38Google Scholar
  7. Bosetti V, Carraro C, Massetti E, Tavoni M (eds) (2014) Climate change mitigation. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, Technological Innovation And Adaptation, A New Perspective on Climate PolicyGoogle Scholar
  8. Bréchet T, Gerard F, Tulkens H (2011) Efficiency versus stability in climate coalitions: a conceptual and computational appraisal. Energy J 32(1):49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carraro C, Siniscalco D (1993) Strategies for the international protection of the environment. J Pub Econ 52(3):309–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carraro C, Eyckmans J, Finus M (2006) Optimal transfers and participation decisions in international environmental agreements. Rev Int Organ 1(4):379–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chander P, Tulkens H (1995) A core-theoretic solution for the design of cooperative agreements on transfrontier pollution. Int Tax Pub Finance 2:279–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. d’Aspremont C, Gabszewicz JJ (1986) New developments in the analysis of market structures. Macmillan, New York, chap On the stability of collusion, pp 243–264Google Scholar
  13. Dellink R, de Bruin K, Nagashima M, van Ierland EC, Urbina-Alonso Y, Weikard HP, Yu S (2015) STACO technical document 3: model description and calibration of STACO-3, WASS Working Paper 2015–11, Wageningen UniversityGoogle Scholar
  14. Eyckmans J (2012) Review of applications of game theory to global climate agreements. Rev Bus Econ Lit 57(2):122–142Google Scholar
  15. Eyckmans J, Finus M (2006) Coalition formation in a global warming game: how the design of protocols affects the success of environmental treaty-making. Nat Resour Model 19(3):323–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eyckmans J, Finus M (2007) Measures to enhance the success of global climate treaties. Int Environ Agreem: Politics Law Econ 7(1):73–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eyckmans J, Tulkens H (2003) Simulating coalitionally stable burden sharing agreements for the climate change problem. Resour Energy Econ 25:299–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eyckmans J, Finus M, Mallozzi L (2013) A new class of welfare maximizing stable sharing rules for partition function form games, working paperGoogle Scholar
  19. Fankhauser S (1995) Valuing climate change: the economics of the greenhouse. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Finus M (2008) Game theoretic research on the design of international environmental agreements: insights, critical remarks, and future challenges. Int Rev Environ Resour Econ 2:29–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Finus M, Pintassilgo P (2013) The role of uncertainty and learning for the success of international climate agreements. J Pub Econ 103:29–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Finus M, van Ierland E, Dellink R (2006) Stability of climate coalitions in a cartel formation game. Econ Gov 7:271–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fuentes-Albero C, Rubio SJ (2010) Can international environmental cooperation be bought? Eur J Oper Res 202(1):255–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoel M (1992) International environment conventions: the case of uniform reductions of emissions. Environ Resour Econ 2(2):141–159Google Scholar
  25. Karp L, Simon L (2013) Participation games and international environmental agreements: a non-parametric model. J Environ Econ Manag 65(2):326–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kolstad C, Ulph A (2008) Learning and international environmental agreements. Clim Change 89:125–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kolstad C, Ulph A (2011) Uncertainty, learning and heterogeneity in international environmental agreements. Environ Resour Econ 50:389–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kornek U, Steckel J, Edenhofer O, Lessmann K (2013) The climate rent curse: new challenges for burden sharing, presented at 20th annual conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 26–29 June 2013, Toulouse, France, available at http://www.webmeets.com/EAERE/2013/prog/viewpaper.asp?pid=757
  29. Kornek U, Lessmann K, Tulkens H (2014) Transferable and non transferable utility implementations of coalitional stability in integrated assessment models, CORE Discussion Paper nb 35Google Scholar
  30. Lessmann K, Edenhofer O (2011) Research cooperation and international standards in a model of coalition stability. Resour Energy Econ 33(1):36–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lessmann K, Marschinski R, Edenhofer O (2009) The effects of tariffs on coalition formation in a dynamic global warming game. Econ Model 26(3):641–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Luderer G, Pietzcker RC, Bertram C, Kriegler E, Meinshausen M, Edenhofer O (2013) Economic mitigation challenges: how further delay closes the door for achieving climate targets. Environ Res Lett 8(3):034033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McGinty M (2007) International environmental agreements among asymmetric nations. Oxf Econ Pap 59(1):45–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Metz B, Davidson O, Bosch P, Dave R, Meyer L (eds) (2007) Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Morris J, Paltsev S, Reilly J (2008) Marginal abatement costs and marginal welfare costs for greenhouse gas emissions reductions: results from the EPPA model, MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. Report 164, Cambridge, MITGoogle Scholar
  36. Nagashima M, Dellink R, Van Ierland E, Weikard HP (2009) Stability of international climate coalitions–a comparison of transfer schemes. Ecol Econ 68(5):1476–1487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nagashima M, Weikard HP, de Bruin K, Dellink R (2011) International climate agreements under induced technological change. Metroeconomica 62(4):612–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nordhaus W (2008) A question of balance: economic modelling of global warming. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  39. Nordhaus WD, Yang Z (1996) A regional dynamic general-equilibrium model of alternative climate-change strategies. Am Econ Rev 86(4):741–765Google Scholar
  40. Paltsev S (2010) Baseline projections for the EPPA-5 model, personal communicationGoogle Scholar
  41. Paltsev S, Reilly J, Jacoby HD, Eckaus RS, McFarland J, Sarofim M, Asadoorian M, Babiker M (2005) The MIT emissions prediction and policy analysis (EPPA) model: version 4, MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. Report 125, Cambridge, MITGoogle Scholar
  42. Ramsey F (1928) A mathematical theory of saving. Econ J 38(152):543–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tol R (2009) The economic effects of climate change. J Econ Perspect 23(2):29–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Weikard HP (2009) Cartel stability under an optimal sharing rule. Manch Sch 77(5):575–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Weikard HP, Finus M, Altamirano-Cabrera J (2006) The impact of surplus sharing on the stability of international climate agreements. Oxf Econ Pap 58(2):209–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yang Z (2008) Strategic bargaining and cooperation in greenhouse gas mitigations: an integrated assessment modeling approach. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kai Lessmann
    • 1
  • Ulrike Kornek
    • 1
  • Valentina Bosetti
    • 2
  • Rob Dellink
    • 3
  • Johannes Emmerling
    • 4
  • Johan Eyckmans
    • 5
  • Miyuki Nagashima
    • 6
  • Hans-Peter Weikard
    • 3
  • Zili Yang
    • 7
  1. 1.Potsdam-Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)PotsdamGermany
  2. 2.Department of Economis, IEFE, and IGIERUniversita Bocconi and Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM)MilanItaly
  3. 3.Environmental Economics and Natural Resources Group, Department of EconomicsWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM) and Centro Euro-Mediterraneo sui Cambiamenti Climatici (CMCC)MilanItaly
  5. 5.Center for Economics and Corporate Sustainability (CEDON)KU LeuvenBrusselsBelgium
  6. 6.Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE)KyotoJapan
  7. 7.Department of EconomicsState University of New York at BinghamtonNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations