Advertisement

Environmental Modeling & Assessment

, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 151–163 | Cite as

On the optimal control of carbon dioxide emissions: an application of FUND

  • Richard S.J. Tol
Article

Abstract

This paper presents the Climate Framework for Uncertainty, Negotiation and Distribution (FUND), an integrated assessment model of climate change, and discusses selected results. FUND is a nine‐region model of the world economy and its interactions with climate, running in time steps of one year from 1990 to 2200. The model consists of scenarios for economy and population, which are perturbed by climate change and greenhouse gas emission reduction policy. Each region optimizes its net present welfare. Policy variables are energy and carbon efficiency improvement, and sequestering carbon dioxide in forests. It is found that reducing conventional air pollution is a major reason to abate carbon dioxide emissions. Climate change is an additional reason to abate emissions. Reducing and changing energy use is preferred as an option over sequestering carbon. Under non‐cooperation, free riding as well as assurance behaviour is observed in the model. The scope for joint implementation is limited. Under cooperation, optimal emission abatement is (slightly) higher than under non‐cooperation, but the global coalition is not self‐enforcing while side payments are insufficient. Optimal emission control under non‐cooperation is less than currently discussed under the Framework Convention on Climate Change, but higher than observed in practice.

integrated assessment of climate change optimal control game theory secondary benefits 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    K. Arrow et al., Intergenerational equity and time discounting, in: Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions Climate Change — Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds. J.P. Bruce, H. Lee and E.F. Haites (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996).Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    R.A. Bulatao, E. Bos, W.P. Stephens and M.T. Vu, World Population Projection Short-and Long-term Estimates, United Nations, Geneva (1990).Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    J. Eykmans, S. Proost and E. Schokkaert, Efficiency and distribution in greenhouse negotiations, Kyklos 46(3) (1993) 363-398.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    S. Fankhauser and S. Kverndokk, The global warming game — simulations of a CO2-reduction agreement, Resource and Energy Economics, 18 (1996) 83-102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    M. Hoel, Global environmental problems: the effects of unilateral actions taken by one country, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 20 (1991) 55-70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    M. Hoel, International environment conventions: the case of uniform reductions of emissions, Environmental and Resource Economics 2 (1992) 141-159.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    M. Hoel, Intertemporal properties of an international carbon tax, Resource and Energy Economics 15 (1993) 51-70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    M. Hoel, Efficient climate policy in the presence of free riders, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 27 (1994) 259-274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    J.C. Hourcade, K. Halsneas, M. Jaccard, D. Montgomery, R. Richels, J. Robinson, P.R. Shukla and P. Sturm, A review of mitigation cost studies, in: Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions Climate Change — Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds. J.P. Bruce, H. Lee and E.F. Haites (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996).Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    L.S. Kalkstein, Health and climate change. Direct impact in cities, The Lancet 342 (1993) 1397-1399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    L.S. Kalkstein and G. Tan, Human health, in: As Climate Changes International Impacts and Implications, eds. K.M. Strzepek and J.B. Smith (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995).Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    A. Kattenberg, F. Giorgi, H. Grassl, G.A. Meehl, J.F.B. Mitchell, R.J. Stouffer, T. Tokioka, A.J. Weaver and T.M.L. Wigley, Climate models — projections of future climate, in: Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change — Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds. J.T. Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg and K. Maskell (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996).Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    O.J. Kuik, P. Peters and N. Schrijver, Joint Implementation to Curb Climate Change — Legal and Economic Aspects (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1994).Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    J. Leggett, W.J. Pepper and R.J. Swart, Emissions scenarios for the IPCC: an update, in: Climate Change 1992 — The Supplementary Report to the IPCC Scientific Assessment, eds. J.T. Houghton, B.A. Callander and S.K. Varney (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992).Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    A.S. Manne, R. Mendelsohn and R.G. Richels, MERGE — a model for evaluating regional and global effects of GHG reduction policies, Energy Policy 23(1) (1995) 17-34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    A.S. Manne and R.G. Richels, The greenhouse debate — economic efficiency, burden sharing and hedging strategies, Energy Journal 16(4) (1995) 1-37.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    W.D. Nordhaus, An optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases, Science 258 (1992) 1315-1319.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    W.D. Nordhaus, Rolling the DICE: an optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases, Resource and Energy Economics 15 (1993) 27-50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    W.D. Nordhaus, Managing the Global Commons: The Economics of Climate Change (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1994).Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    W.D. Nordhaus and Z. Yang, RICE: a regional dynamic general equilibrium model of optimal climate-change policy, American Economic Review 86(4) (1996) 741-765.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    S.C. Peck and T.J. Teisberg, CETA: a model for carbon emissions trajectory assessment, The Energy Journal 13(1) (1991) 55-77.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    S.C. Peck and T.J. Teisberg, Global warming uncertainties and the value of information: an analysis using CETA, Resource and Energy Economics 15 (1993) 71-97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    S.C. Peck and T.J. Teisberg, CO2 emissions control — comparing policy instruments, Energy Policy (1993) 222-230.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    S.C. Peck and T.J. Teisberg, Optimal carbon emissions trajectories when damages depend on the rate or level of global warming, Climatic Change 28 (1994) 289-314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    S.C. Peck and T.J. Teisberg, Optimal CO2 control policy with stochastic losses from temperature rise, Climatic Change 31 (1995) 19-34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    L. Pritchett, Forget convergence: divergence past, present and future, Finance and Development (1996) 40-43.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    A. Rose and B. Stevens, The efficiency and equity of marketable permits for CO2 emissions, Resource and Energy Economics 15 (1993) 117-146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    A. Sen, Labour allocation in a cooperative enterprise, Review of Economic Studies 33 (1966) 361-371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    A. Sen, Isolation, assurance and the social rate of discount, Quarterly Journal of Economics 81 (1967) 112-124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    K.P. Shine, R.G. Derwent, D.J. Wuebbles and J.-J. Morcrette, Radiative forcing of climate, in: Climate Change — The IPCC Scientific Assessment, eds. J.T. Houghton, G.J. Jenkins and J.J. Ephraums (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990).Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    J.G. Titus and V.K. Narayanan, The Probability of Sea Level Rise, EPA 230-R-95-008 (USEPA, Washington, DC, 1995).Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    R.S.J. Tol, T. van der Burg, H.M.A. Jansen and H. Verbruggen, The climate fund — some notions on the socio-economic impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and emission reduction in an international context, R95/03, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam (1995).Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    R.S.J. Tol, The climate framework for uncertainty, negotiation and distribution (FUND), Technical description, version 1.5, D96/01, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam (1996).Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    R.S.J. Tol, The damage costs of climate change — towards a dynamic representation, Ecological Economics 19 (1996) 67-90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. [35]
    J. Weyant, O. Davidson, H. Dowlatabadi, J. Edmonds, M. Grubb, E.A. Parson, R. Richels, J. Rotmans, P.R. Shukla, R.S.J. Tol, W.R. Cline and S. Fankhauser, Integrated assessment of climate change: an overview and comparison of approaches and results, in: Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions — Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds. J.P. Bruce, H. Lee and E.F. Haites (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard S.J. Tol
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Environmental StudiesVrije UniversiteitAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations