Abstract
Climate financing is a key issue in current negotiations on climate protection. This study establishes a climate financing model based on a mechanism in which donor countries set up funds for climate financing and recipient countries use the funds exclusively for carbon emission reduction. The burden-sharing principles are based on GDP, historical emissions, and consumptionbased emissions. Using this model, we develop and analyze a series of scenario simulations, including a financing program negotiated at the Cancun Climate Change Conference (2010) and several subsequent programs. Results show that sustained climate financing can help to combat global climate change. However, the Cancun Agreements are projected to result in a reduction of only 0.01°C in global warming by 2100 compared to the scenario without climate financing. Longer-term climate financing programs should be established to achieve more significant benefits. Our model and simulations also show that climate financing has economic benefits for developing countries. Developed countries will suffer a slight GDP loss in the early stages of climate financing, but the longterm economic growth and the eventual benefits of climate mitigation will compensate for this slight loss. Different burden-sharing principles have very similar effects on global temperature change and economic growth of recipient countries, but they do result in differences in GDP changes for Japan and the FSU. The GDP-based principle results in a larger share of financial burden for Japan, while the historical emissions-based principle results in a larger share of financial burden for the FSU. A larger burden share leads to a greater GDP loss.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Buchner B, Brown J, Corfee-Morlot J (2011). Monitoring and tracking long-term finance to support climate action (No. 2011/3). Paris: OECD Publishing
Buchner B, Carraro C, Cersosimo I, Carmen M (2005). Back to Kyoto? US participation and the linkage between R&D and climate cooperation. In: Haurie A, Viguier L, eds. The Coupling of Climate and Economic Dynamics. Amsterdam: Springer
Buonanno P, Carraro C, Galeotti M (2003). Endogenous induced technical change and the costs of Kyoto. Resour Energy Econ, 25(1): 11–34
Chen ZM, Chen G Q (2011). An overview of energy consumption of the globalized world economy. Energy Policy, 39(10): 5920–5928
Chen Z M, Chen G Q, Chen B (2013). Embodied carbon dioxide emission by the globalized economy: a systems ecological inputoutput simulation. Journal of Environmental Informatics, 21(1): 35–44
Davis S J, Caldeira K (2010). Consumption-based accounting of CO2 emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 107(12): 5687–5692
Dellink R, Elzen M, Aiking H, Bergsma E, Berkhout F, Dekker T, Gupta J (2009). Sharing the burden of financing adaptation to climate change. Glob Environ Change, 19(4): 411–421
Eyckmans J, Tulkens H (2003). Simulating coalitionally stable burden sharing agreements for the climate change problem. Resour Energy Econ, 25(4): 299–327
Hof A F, den Elzen M G J, Mendoza Beltran A (2011). Predictability, equitability and adequacy of post-2012 international climate financing proposals. Environ Sci Policy, 14(6): 615–627
Houser T, Selfe J (2011). Delivering on US climate finance commitments. Working paper of the Peterson Institute for International Economics No. WP 11–19
Jotzo F, Pickering J, Wood P J (2011). Fulfilling Australia’s international climate finance commitments: Which sources of financing are promising and how much could they raise? CCEP working paper 1115
Kelly D L, Kolstad C D (1999). Integrated assessment models for climate change control. In: Folmer H, Tietenberg T, eds. The International Yearbook of Environmental and Resource Economics 1999/2000: A Survey of Current Issues. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 171–197
Klinsky S, Dowlatabadi H (2009). Conceptualizations of justice in climate policy. Clim Policy, 9(1): 88–108
Leimbach M (1998). Modeling climate protection expenditure. Glob Environ Change, 8(2): 125–139
Lenzen M, Murray J, Sack F, Wiedmann T (2007). Shared producer and consumer responsibility—Theory and practice. Ecol Econ, 61(1): 27–42
Manne A, Mendelsohn R, Richels R (1995). MERGE: a model for evaluating regional and global effects of GHG reduction policies. Energy Policy, 23(1): 17–34
Nordhaus W D (1992). Optimal greenhouse-gas reductions and tax policy in the “DICE” model. Am Econ Rev, 83: 313–317
Nordhaus W D, Boyer J (2000). Warming the World: Economic Models of Global Warming. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press
Nordhaus WD, Yang Z (1996). A regional dynamic general-equilibrium model of alternative climate-change strategies. Am Econ Rev, 86: 741–765
Pizer W A (1999). The optimal choice of climate change policy in the presence of uncertainty. Resour Energy Econ, 21(3–4): 255–287
Popp D (2006). ENTICE-BR: the effects of backstop technology R&D on climate policy models. Energy Econ, 28(2): 188–222
Tol R (1997). On the optimal control of carbon dioxide emissions: an application of FUND. Environ Model Assess, 2(3): 151–163
Tol R (2002). Welfare specifications and optimal control of climate change: an application of FUND. Energy Econ, 24(4): 367–376
UN (1992). Report on the UN Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 June 1992. A/CONF.151/26/ Rev.1, vols. I–III. New York, USA
UN (2010). Report of the Secretary-General’s high-level advisory group on climate change financing. New York: United Nations
Van der Zwaan B C C, Gerlagh R, Klaassen G, Schrattenholzer L (2002). Endogenous technological change in climate change modeling. Energy Econ, 24(1): 1–19
Wang Z, Li H,Wu J, Gong Y, Zhang H, Zhao C (2010). Policy modeling on the GDP spillovers of carbon abatement policies between China and the United States. Econ Model, 27(1): 40–45
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wu, J., Tang, L., Mohamed, R. et al. Modeling and assessing international climate financing. Front. Earth Sci. 10, 253–263 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11707-015-0511-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11707-015-0511-x