Advertisement

Sharing the costs and benefits of climate change mitigation via Shapley value

  • Muhammad LuqmanEmail author
  • Ugur SoytasEmail author
  • Sui Peng
  • Shaoan Huang
Research Article
  • 52 Downloads

Abstract

This paper examines the free rider problem that exists in the joint effort to mitigate climate change. There is a need to develop a model that is stable and that provides evidence of an objective burden sharing rule so that the environmental agreement is more acceptable. This study approaches this problem via a cooperative game at the global level to make International Environmental Agreements (IEA) more stable. For this purpose, we apply the Shapley value transfer mechanism and find that under the commitment scenario, some regions attain the maximum benefits by joining the coalition. Shapley value transfer improves the coalition size and increases the global benefits at a certain level of abatement under perfect cooperation. Imperfect cooperation leads to lower levels of global benefits. Our findings offer new implications on how to improve the international cooperation for climate change. Commitments by major regions could activate the IEA (e.g., Paris agreement) efficiently. For the maximum global response to climate change, the national governments must reformulate and implement policies to meet their intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs). The results of this study also help the national governments to set their implementation priorities to implement the Paris Accord at global level.

Keywords

International Environmental Agreements Climate change Coalition formation game Burden sharing 

Notes

References

  1. Aakre S, Hovi J (2010) Emission trading: participation enforcement determines the need for compliance enforcement. Eur Union Polit 11:427–445.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116510369265 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackerman F, Stanton EA (2012) Climate risks and carbon prices: revising the social cost of carbon. Economics 6.  https://doi.org/10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2012-10
  3. Ahn B-H, Kim Y-G (2001) Tradable tagged permit system for global pollution control. J Policy Model 23:569–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrett S (1997) Heterogeneous international environmental agreementsGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrett S (2008) Climate treaties and the imperative of enforcement. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 24:239–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baumol W, Oates W (1988) The theory of environmental policy. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  7. Bohm P, Carlén B (2002) A cost-effective approach to attracting low-income countries to international emissions trading: theory and experiments. Environ Resour Econ 23:187–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bollen J, van der Zwaan B, Brink C, Eerens H (2009) Local air pollution and global climate change: a combined cost-benefit analysis. Resour Energy Econ 31:161–181.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2009.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Botteon M, Carraro C (1997) Environmental coalitions with heterogeneous countries: burden-sharing and carbon leakage. Fond Eni Enrico Mattei Work PapGoogle Scholar
  10. Carraro C (2003) The endogenous formation of economic coalitions. Edward Elgar PublishingGoogle Scholar
  11. Carraro C, Siniscalco D (1993) Strategies for the international protection of the environment. J Public Econ 52:309–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dellink R, Altamirano-Cabrera J, Finus M et al (2004a) Empirical background paper of the STACO model. Wageningen Univ Environ Econ Nat Resour Gr:1–20Google Scholar
  13. Dellink RB, Finus M, van Ierland EC, Altamirano JC (2004b) Empirical background paper of the STACO modelGoogle Scholar
  14. Ellerman AD, Decaux A (1998) Analysis of post-Kyoto CO2 emissions trading using marginal abatement curvesGoogle Scholar
  15. Eyckmans J, Tulkens H (2003) Simulating coalitionally stable burden sharing agreements for the climate change problem. Resour Energy Econ 25:299–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fankhauser S (1995) Valuing climate change: the economics of the greenhouse. EarthscanGoogle Scholar
  17. Fankhauser S (2013) Valuing climate change: the economics of the greenhouse. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Finus M, Van Ierland E, Dellink R (2006) Stability of climate coalitions in a cartel formation game. Econ Gov 7:271–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Finus M, Saiz ME, Hendrix EMT (2009) An empirical test of new developments in coalition theory for the design of international environmental agreements. Environ Dev Econ 14:117–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoel M (1992) International environment conventions: the case of uniform reductions of emissions. Environ Resour Econ 2:141–159Google Scholar
  21. Hoel M, Schneider K (1997) Incentives to participate in an international environmental agreement. Environ Resour Econ 9:153–170Google Scholar
  22. Höhne N, Kuramochi T, Warnecke C, Röser F, Fekete H, Hagemann M, Day T, Tewari R, Kurdziel M, Sterl S, Gonzales S (2017) The Paris Agreement: resolving the inconsistency between global goals and national contributions. Clim Pol 17:16–32.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2016.1218320 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Honjo K (2015) Cooperative emissions trading game: international permit market dominated by buyers. PLoS One 10:1–20.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132272 Google Scholar
  24. Howarth RB, Gerst MD, Borsuk ME (2014) Risk mitigation and the social cost of carbon. Glob Environ Chang 24:123–131.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.11.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kanie N, Nishimoto H, Hijioka Y, Kameyama Y (2010) Allocation and architecture in climate governance beyond Kyoto: lessons from interdisciplinary research on target setting. Int Environ Agreements Polit Law Econ 10:299–315.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-010-9143-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Keohane N, Petsonk A, Hanafi A (2017) Toward a club of carbon markets. Clim Chang 144:81–95.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1506-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kern R (1985) The Shapley transfer value without zero weights. Int J Game Theory 14:73–92.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01769886 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kim Y (2004a) A game-theoretic analysis on negotiation mechanisms for climate change mitigationGoogle Scholar
  29. Kim Y-G (2004b) A framework for global cooperation on climate change. Korea Environment Institute, SeoulGoogle Scholar
  30. Kossoy A, Ambrosi P (2010) State and trends of the carbon market 2010. World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  31. Kossoy A, Guigon P (2012) State and trends of the carbon market 2012. World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  32. Liou J-L, Wu P-I (2015) Equity criterion for initial rights CO2 emissions allocations under emissions trading: cooperation or conflict among nations? Environ Dev Econ 20:587–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Luqman M, Peng S, Huang S, Bibi A, Ahmad N (2018) Cost allocation for the problem of pollution reduction. A dynamic cooperative game approach. Econ Res Istraživanja 31:1717–1736.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2018.1515642 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Paris Agreement (2018) United Nations treaty collection. https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-7-d&chapter=27&clang=_en. Accessed 20 Mar 2018
  35. Petrosjan L, Zaccour G (2003) Time-consistent Shapley value allocation of pollution cost reduction. J Econ Dyn Control 27:381–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shapley LS (1953) In: Kuhn HW (ed) Contributions to the theory of games II (Annals of Mathematics Studies 28). Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 307–317Google Scholar
  37. Siebert H (2008) Economics of the environment: theory and policy. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  38. Stavins R (2016) The Paris agreement and beyond: international climate change policy post-2020Google Scholar
  39. Tietenberg TH, Lewis L (2009) Environmental and natural resource economics. Pearson Addison WesleyGoogle Scholar
  40. Tol RSJ (1996) A decision-analytic treatise of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Vrije UniversiteitGoogle Scholar
  41. Tol RSJ (2005) The marginal damage costs of carbon dioxide emissions: an assessment of the uncertainties. Energy Policy 33:2064–2074.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2004.04.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1947) Theory of games and economic behaviorGoogle Scholar
  43. Wang L, Gao H, Petrosyan L, Qiao H, Sedakov A (2016) Strategically supported cooperation in dynamic games with coalition structures. Sci China Math 59:1015–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Weikard H-P, Finus M, Altamirano-Cabrera J-C (2006) The impact of surplus sharing on the stability of international climate agreements. Oxf Econ Pap 58:209–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Winter E (1994) The demand commitment bargaining and snowballing cooperation. Economic Theory 4:255–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Winter E (2002) The Shapley value. ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  47. Wu P-I, Chen CT, Cheng P-C, Liou J-L (2014) Climate game analyses for CO2 emission trading among various world organizations. Econ Model 36:441–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EconomicsQingdao UniversityQingdaoPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Department of Business AdministrationMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  3. 3.The Center for Economic ResearchShandong UniversityJinanPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations