Climatic Change

, Volume 134, Issue 4, pp 505–519 | Cite as

Assessment of balanced burden-sharing in the 2050 EU climate/energy roadmap: a metamodeling approach

Article

Abstract

In this paper we propose a non-cooperative meta-game approach to designing and assessing climate agreements among 28 European countries that will be compatible with the EU 2050 climate target. Our proposed game model is identified through statistical emulation of a large set of numerical simulations performed with the computable general equilibrium model GEMINI-E3. In this game, the players are the 28 European countries, the payoffs are related to welfare losses due to abatements and the strategies correspond to the supply of emission rights on the European carbon market. We show it is possible to design a fair burden-sharing rule that equalizes welfare losses between countries to approximately 1.2 % of their discounted household consumption. The associated European CO2 price in 2050 reaches $1100, a figure in line with previous studies. Lastly, the paper discusses various implementation issues of these types of negotiations and evaluates the cost of non-cooperation among EU countries.

References

  1. Babonneau F, Haurie A, Vielle M (2013) A robust meta-game for climate negotiations. Comput Manag Sci 10(4):299–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bahn O, Haurie A (2008) A class of games with coupled constraints to model international GHG emission agreements. Int Game Theory Rev 10(4):337–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumert KA, Blanchard O, Llosa S, Perkaus JF (eds) (2002) Building on the Kyoto protocol: options for protecting the climate. World Resources Institute, Washington D.CGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernard A, Vielle M (2008) GEMINI-E3, a general equilibrium model of international national interactions between economy. Energy and the Environment, Computational Management Science 5:173–206Google Scholar
  5. Bernard A, Vielle M (2003) Measuring the welfare cost of climate change policies: a comparative assessment based on the computable general equilibrium model GEMINI-E3. Environ Model Assess 8:199–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Böhringer C (2014) Two decades of european climate policy: a critical appraisal. Rev Environ Econ Policy 8(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Böhringer C, Rutherford TF (2002) Carbon abatement and international spillovers. Environ Resour Econ 22:391–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Böhringer C, Vogt C (2004) The dismantling of a breakthrough: the Kyoto protocol as symbolic policy. Eur J Polit Econ 20(3):591–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brandt US, Svendsen GT (2011) A project-based system for including farmers in the EU ETS. J Environ Manag 92(4):1121–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Capros P, Paroussos L, Fragkos P, Tsani S, Boitier B, Wagner F, Busch S, Resch G, Blesl M, Bollen J (2014) Description of models and scenarios used to assess European decarbonisation pathways. Energy Strategy Reviews 2(3–4):220–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carbone JC, Helm C, Rutherford TF (2009) The case for international emission trade in the absence of cooperative climate policy. J Environ Econ Manag 58 (3):266–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. E3MLab - ICCS (2013) AMPERE (Assessment of Climate Change Mitigation Pathways and Evaluation of the Robustness of Mitigation Cost Estimates) Deliverable D5.2: Report on the role of path dependence for EU decarbonisation pathwaysGoogle Scholar
  13. European Commission (2011a) A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050Google Scholar
  14. European Commission (2011b) The 2012 Ageing Report: Underlying Assumptions and Projection MethodologiesGoogle Scholar
  15. Flachsland C, Brunner S, Edenhofer O, Creutzig F (2011) Climate policies for road transport revisited (II): closing the policy gap with cap-and-trade. Energy Policy 39(4):2100–2110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haurie A, Babonneau F, Edwards N, Holden PB, Kanudia A, Labriet M, Pizzileo B, Vielle M (2015) Fairness in climate negotiations: a meta-game analysis based on community integrated assessment. In: Semmler W, Bernard L (eds) Handbook on the macroeconomics of climate change. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Heinen N (2011) EU net contributor or net recipient Just a matter of your standpoint? Deutsche Bank Research working paperGoogle Scholar
  18. Heinrichs H, Jochem P, Fichtner W (2014) Including road transport in the EU ETS (European Emissions Trading System): a model-based analysis of the German electricity and transport sector. Energy 69(1):708–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Helm C (2003) International emissions trading with endogenous allowance choices. J Public Econ 87(12):2737–2747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. International Energy Agency (2013a) CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion HIGHLIGHTS, IEA StatisticsGoogle Scholar
  21. International Energy Agency (2013b) World Energy Outlook 2013Google Scholar
  22. Knopf B, Chen Y-HH, De Cian E, Förster H, Kanudia A, Karkatsouli I, Keppo I, Koljonen T, Schumacher K, Van Vuuren DP (2013) Beyond 2020 - Strategies and costs for transforming the European energy system. Climate Change Economics 4(S1)Google Scholar
  23. Lacasta N, Oberthür S, Santos E, Barata P (2010) From Sharing the Burden to Sharing the Effort: Decision 406/2009/EC on Member State Emission Target for non-ETS Sectors in The new climate policies of the European Union: internal legislation and climate diplomacyGoogle Scholar
  24. Marklund P-O, Samakovlis E (2007) What is driving the EU burden-sharing agreement: efficiency or equity? J Environ Manag 85(2):317–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Matthews HD, Gillett NP, Stott PA, Zickfeld K (2009) The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions. Nature 459:829–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Narayanan B, Aguiar A, McDougall R (eds) (2012) Global trade, assistance, and production: the GTAP 8 data base, center for global trade analysis, Purdue UniversityGoogle Scholar
  27. Phylipsen GJM, Bode JW, Blok K, Merkus H, Metz B (1998) A Triptych sectoral approach to burden differentiation; GHG emissions in the European bubble. Energy Policy 26(12):929–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, p 623Google Scholar
  29. Rosen JB (1965) Existence and uniqueness of equilibrium points for concave n-person games. Econometrica 33(3):520–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Spencer T, Fazekas D (2013) Distributional choices in EU climate policy: 20 years of policy practice. Clim Pol 13(2):240–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tavoni M, Kriegler E, Aboumahboub T, Calvin K, De Maere G, Wise M, Klein D (2013) The distribution of the major economies’ effort in the Durban platform scenarios. Climate Change Economics 4(4)Google Scholar
  32. Tol RS (2009) Intra- and extra-union flexibility in meeting the European Union’s emission reduction targets. Energy Policy 37(11):4329–4336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tol RS (2012) A cost-benefit analysis of the EU 20/20/2020 package. Energy Policy 49:288–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Trotignon R, Delbosc A (2008) Allowance trading patterns during the EU ETS trial period: what does the CITL reveal? Climate Report 13, Mission Climat of Caisse des DépôtsGoogle Scholar
  35. Weyant J, Knopf B, De Cian E, Keppo I, van Vuuren D (2013) Introduction to the EMF28 Study on scenarios for transforming the European energy system. Climate Change Economics 4:S1CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frédéric Babonneau
    • 1
    • 2
  • Alain Haurie
    • 1
  • Marc Vielle
    • 2
  1. 1.ORDECSYSChêne-BougeriesSwitzerland
  2. 2.LEURE, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne (EPFL)LausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations