Global Warming pp 407-421 | Cite as

Game Analysis of Kyoto and Post-Kyoto Schemes

  • Haruo Imai
Part of the Green Energy and Technology book series (GREEN)


Game theory is a tool utilized in economics to analyze the consequences of interaction among rational agents. It has been found to be especially useful for evaluating the workings of economic schemes at the theoretical level and also designing a possible mechanism to improve the economic system. In environmental economics, the use of game theory is most prominent in the analysis of IEAs (international environmental agreements), and the current negotiations on post-Kyoto (or post-2012) present a potential interesting application of game theory. Furthermore, such studies inspire further use of game theoretical tools in the study of such issues. In this chapter, we examine game theory analysis in this context and suggest some further directions of study with an emphasis on the role played by one particular mechanism under the Kyoto protocol (KP) called the CDM (clean development mechanism).


Emission Reduction Clean Development Mechanism Kyoto Protocol Emission Trading Grand Coalition 
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.



We appreciate comments made at the first World Congress of global warming and, in particular, to the anonymous referees who provided information not contained in the earlier version. Furthermore, financial aid from the Grants in Aid (20330037) of the Japanese Society for Promotion of Science and Sumitomo Foundation is gratefully acknowledged.


  1. Akita, J. (2003). A simple model of CDM low-hanging fruits, in T. Sawa (ed.) International Frameworks and Technological Strategies to Prevent Climate Change, Tokyo, Springer Verlag, 66–96.Google Scholar
  2. Asheim, G. B., C. B. Froyn, J. Hovi, and F. C. Menz (2006). Regional versus global cooperation for climate control, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 51, 93–109.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrett, S. (1994). Self Enforcing International Environmental Agreement., Oxford Economic Papers, 46, 878–94.Google Scholar
  4. Barrett, S. (1999). A Theory of full international cooperation, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 11, 519–41.Google Scholar
  5. Barrett, S. (2005). Environment and Statecraft, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bernard, A., A. Haurie, M. Vielle, and L. Viguier (2008). A two-level dynamic game of carbon emission trading between Russia, China, and annex B countries, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 32, 1830–56.Google Scholar
  7. Bohlinger, C. and C. Helm (2008). On the fair division of greenhouse gas abatement cost, Resource and Energy Economics, 30, 260–76.Google Scholar
  8. Carraro, C. and D. Siniscalco (1993). Strategies for the international protection of environment, Journal of Public Economics, 52, 309–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carraro, C., J, Eyckmans, and M. Finus (2006). Optimal transfers and participation decisions in international environmental agreements., Review of International Organization, 1, 379–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fischer, C. (2005). Project based mechanisms for emission reductions: balancing trade-offs with baselines, Energy Policy, 33, 1807–23.Google Scholar
  11. Imai, H. and J. Akita (2003) .On the incentive consequences of alternative CDM baseline schemes, in T. Sawa (ed.) International Frameworks and Technological Strategies to Prevent Climate Change, Tokyo: Springer Verlag, 110–126.Google Scholar
  12. Imai, H., J. Akita and H. Niizawa (2008a). Effects of alternative CDM baseline schemes under imperfectly competitive market structure, in A. Dinar, J. Albiac, and J. S. Soriano (eds.) Game Theory and Policy Making in Natural Resources and the Environment, Routledge, 307–333.Google Scholar
  13. Imai, H., J. Akita and H. Niizawa (2008b).CDM domino, in L. Petrosjan and N. Zenkevich (eds.) Contributions to Game Theory and Management, Graduate School of Management, St. Petersburg State University, 177–88.Google Scholar
  14. Ishii, R. and H. Imai (2008). Emission Trading at the End of Commitment Period, Proceedings of the World Congress of Global Warming, 1295–302.Google Scholar
  15. Laurikka, H. (2002). Absolute or relative baselines for JI/CDM projects in the energy sector?, Climate Policy, 2, 19–33.Google Scholar
  16. Roelfsema, H. (2007). Strategic delegation of environmental policy making., Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 53, 270–5.Google Scholar
  17. Rubio, S. and A. Ulph (2007). An infinite-horizon model of dynamic membership of international environmental agreements, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 54, 296–310.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tadenuma, K. (2004). Possibility and Optimality of Agreements in International Negotiations on Climate Change, Hitotsubashi University, mimeo.Google Scholar
  19. Weikard, H.-P. and R. Dellink (2008). Sticks and Carrots for the design of climate agreements with renegotiations, FEEM, working paper 26.Google Scholar
  20. Zeeuw, A. de (2008). Dynamic effects on the stability of international environmental agreements, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 55, 163–74.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Haruo Imai
    • 1
  1. 1.Kyoto UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations