Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 56, Issue 1–2, pp 211–226 | Cite as

Climate Protection Strategies: International Allocation and Distribution Effects

  • Gernot Klepper
  • Katrin Springer
Article

Abstract

In international climate policy discussions, one of the centralissues for medium- to long run climate protection strategiesis the uncertainty about the costs and the distributional effectsof specific unilateral or multilateral emission reductions. Thispaper looks at the world-wide effects of climate protection strategieson the allocation of resources, on economic growth in differentregions, and on the regional welfare effects. The analysis isbased on a global recursively dynamic, multi-region, multi-sectorcomputable general equilibrium model parameterized accordingto the ICLIPS (Integrated Assessment of Climate Protection Strategies)integrated assessment model. The simulations show that nationalclimate policies will have important international repercussions.It is therefore important to consider international allocationeffects in the analysis of national climate protection strategies.The welfare costs of greenhouse gas emission reductions risemore than proportionally with lower emission targets. The analysisof the carbon leakage rate indicates that most of the leakagerapidly disappears if emission reduction moves towards an efficientdistribution of emission targets.

Keywords

Emission Reduction Climate Policy Leakage Rate Welfare Effect Integrate Assessment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Armington, P.: 1969, A Theory of Demand for Products Distinguished by Place of Production, IMF Staff Papers 16, 159–178.Google Scholar
  2. Babiker, M. H., Reilly, J. M., Mayer, M., Eckaus, R. S., Wing, I. S., and Hyman, R. C.: 2001, The MIT Emission Prediction and Policy Analysis (EPPA) Model: Revisions, Sensitivities, and Comparisons of Results, Report No. 71, Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  3. Bernstein, P. M., Montgomery, W. D., and Rutherford, T. F.: 1999, ‘Global Impacts of the Kyoto Agreement: Results from the MS-MRT Model’, Resource and Energy Economics 21 (3/4), 375–413.Google Scholar
  4. Bos, E., Vu, M. T., Massiah, E., and Bulatao, R. A.: 1994, World Population Projections: Estimates and Projections with Related Demographic Statistics, World Bank, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
  5. Burniaux, J.-M., Martin, J. P., Nicoletti, G., and Martins, J. O.: 1992, GREEN-A Multi-Sector, Multi-Region General Equilibrium Model for Quantifying the Cost of Curbing CO2 Emissions: A Technical Manual, Economics Department Working Papers 116, OECD, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  6. Edmonds, J. A., Pitcher, H. M., Barns, D., Baron, R., and Wise, M. A.: 1995, ‘Modeling Future Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The Second Generation Model Description’, in Klein, L. R. and Lo, F. (eds.), Modelling Global Change, United Nations University Press, New York, NY, pp. 295–340.Google Scholar
  7. Geurts, B. M. E., Gielen, A. M., Nahuis, R., Tang, P. J. G., and Timmer, H. R.: 1997, WorldScan. Project Report to the National Research Program on Global Air Pollution and Climate Change, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  8. Gritsevskyi, A. and Schrattenholzer, L.: 2003, ‘Costs of Reducing Carbon Emissions: An Integrated Modeling Framework Approach’, Clim. Change, this issue.Google Scholar
  9. Hall, R. E. and Jones, C. I.: 1996, The Productivity of Nations, Working Paper Series 5812, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  10. Hall, R. E. and Jones, C. I.: 1999, ‘Why Do Some Countries Produce So Much More Output Per Worker Than Others?’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 114(1), 83–116.Google Scholar
  11. Holtsmark, B. J.: 1998, ‘From the Kyoto Protocol to the Fossil Fuel Markets: An Analysis of Costs of Implementation and Gains from Emission Trading Taking Benefits from Revenue Recycling into Account’, in OECD, Economic Modelling of Climate Change, OECD Workshop Report, OECD, Paris, pp. 123–138.Google Scholar
  12. IEA (International Energy Agency): 1997a, Energy Prices and Taxes, OECD, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  13. IEA (International Energy Agency): 1997b, Energy Balances of OECD Countries, OECD, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  14. IEA (International Energy Agency): 1997c, Energy Statistics and Balances of Non-OECD Countries, OECD, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  15. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change): 2001, Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.Google Scholar
  16. Klepper, G.: 2001, ‘Wirtschaftliche Effekte von Klimaänderung’, Wissenschaftsgemeinschaft Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Leibniz Journal, Sonderheft 1.Google Scholar
  17. Klepper, G. and Springer, K.: 2000, Benchmarking the Future-Calibrating a Long-Run, Multi-Regional, Multi-Sectoral CGE Model, Kiel Working Paper 976, Kiel Institute of World Economics, Kiel, Germany.Google Scholar
  18. Leimbach, M. and Toth, F. L.: 2003, ‘Economic Development and Emission Control over the Long-Term: The ICLIPS Aggregated Economic Model’, Clim. Change, this issue.Google Scholar
  19. Matsuoka, Y., Kainuma, M., and Morita, T.: 1995, ‘Scenario Analysis of Global Warming Using the Asian Pacific Integrated Model (AIM)’, Energy Policy 23 (4/5), 357–371.Google Scholar
  20. McDougall, R. (ed.): 1997, Global Trade, Assistance and Protection: The GTAP 3 Data Base, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.Google Scholar
  21. McKibbin, W. and Wilcoxen, P.: 1999, ‘The Theoretical and Empirical Structure of the G-Cubed Model’, Economic Modelling 16 (1), 123–148.Google Scholar
  22. Nakicenovic, N., Grübler, A., and McDonald, A.: 1998, Global Energy Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.Google Scholar
  23. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development): 1998, Economic Modelling of Climate Change, OECD Workshop Report, OECD, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  24. Paltsev, S. V.: 2000, The Kyoto Agreement: Regional and Sectoral Contributions to the Carbon Leakage, Working Paper No. 00-5, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
  25. Schmidt-Hebel, K. and Serén, L.: 1997, Saving across the World: Puzzles and Policies, Discussion Paper 354, World Bank, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  26. Springer, K.: 1998, The DART General Equilibrium Model: A Technical Description, Kiel Working Paper 883, Kiel Institute of World Economics, Kiel, Germany.Google Scholar
  27. Springer, K.: 2001, ‘The Kyoto Protocol: Implications of International Capital Mobility on Trade and Regional Welfare’, in Fossati, A. and Wiegard, W. (eds.), Policy Evaluation with Computable General Equilibrium Models, Routledge, London, U.K.Google Scholar
  28. Tulpué, V., Brown, S., Lim, J., Polidano, C., Pant, H., and Fisher, B. S.: 1998, ‘An Economic Assessment of the Kyoto Protocol Using the Global Trade and Environment Model’, in OECD, Economic Modelling of Climate Change, OECD Workshop Report, OECD, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  29. Wagner, U.: 1998, Literature Survey of Total Factor Productivity, mimeo, Kiel Institute of World Economics, Kiel, Germany.Google Scholar
  30. WBGU (Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung für Globale Umweltfragen): 1997, Ziele für den Klimaschutz 1997: Stellungnahme zur dritten Vertragsstaatenkonferenz der Klimakonvention in Kyoto, WBGU, Bremerhaven, Germany.Google Scholar
  31. Weyant, J. and Hill, J.: 1999, ‘Introduction and Overview’, The Energy Journal Special Issue: The Costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation, pp. vii–xiiv.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gernot Klepper
    • 1
  • Katrin Springer
    • 1
  1. 1.Kiel Institute of World EconomicsKielGermany

Personalised recommendations