International Efforts to Combat Global Warming

  • Karen Pittel
  • Dirk Rübbelke
  • Martin Altemeyer-Bartscher
Reference work entry

Abstract

This chapter sheds some light on the international efforts to curb the global warming threat. The dominant climate agreement to date is the Kyoto Protocol, although competing – or allegedly complement – international climate protection schemes like the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate also exist. After describing the main features of these schemes and their failure to establish an efficient global climate protection regime, the disincentives for countries to commit to efficient climate protection efforts in an international agreement are elaborated on. The negotiation situation faced by national governments is depicted in game theoretic settings and private ancillary benefits of climate policy are identified to raise the likelihood for countries joining an international agreement. Yet, it remains quite disputable to which extent ancillary benefits can be an impetus for more action in international climate policy. Finally, after dedicating a large part of the chapter to agreements that, like the Kyoto Protocol, stipulate abatement quantities, alternative schemes are presented which were coined “price ducks” since they influence the effective prices of climate protection. By manipulating prices, e.g., via an international carbon tax, incentives are generated for producing higher climate protection levels. Recently, so-called matching schemes influencing effective prices of climate protection raised much attention in the scientific literature. Such schemes may attenuate free- or easy-rider incentives in international climate policy and may even induce a globally efficient climate protection level.

Keywords

Combustion Methane Dioxide Europe Ozone 

References

  1. 1.
    Aakre S, Rübbelke DTG (2010) Adaptation to climate change in the European Union – efficiency vs. equity considerations. Environ Policy Gov 20:159–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aakre S, Rübbelke DTG (2010) Objectives of public economic policy and the adaptation to climate change. J Environ Plann Manage 53(6):767–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Altemeyer-Bartscher M, Rübbelke DTG, Sheshinski E (2010) Environmental protection and the private provision of international public goods. Economica 77(308):775–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    APP (2008) Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. Department of State Publication # 11468 (Brochure)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aunan K, Berntsen T, O’Connor D, Hindman Persson T, Vennemo H, Zhai F (2007) Benefits and costs to China of a climate policy. Environ Dev Econ 12:471–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aunan K, Fang J, Mestl HE, O’Connor D, Seip HM, Vennemo H, Zhai F (2003) Co-benefits of CO2-reducing policies in China – a matter of scale? Int J Glob Environ Issues 3:287–304Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aunan K, Fang J, Vennemo H, Oye K, Seip HM (2004) Co-benefits of climate policy lessons learned from a study in Shanxi, China. Energ Policy 32:567–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bauer A (1993) Der Treibhauseffekt. J.C.B Mohr, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bergstrom T (1989) Puzzles – love and spaghetti, the opportunity cost of virtue. J Econ Perspect 3:165–173Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boadway R, Song Z, Tremblay J-F (2007) Commitment and matching contributions to public goods. J Public Econ 91:1664–1683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Buchholz W, Peters W (2003) International environmental agreements reconsidered – stability of coalitions in a one-shot game. In: Marsiliani L, Rauscher M, Withagen C (eds) Environmental policy in an international perspective. Kluwer Academic, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Buchholz W, Cornes RC, Rübbelke DTG (2009) Existence and Warr Neutrality for Matching Equilibria in a Public Good Economy: An Aggregative Game Approach, CESifo Working Paper No. 2884. CESifo, MunichGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bussolo M, O’Connor D (2001) Clearing the air in India: the economics of climate policy with ancillary benefits, Working Paper No. 182. OECD Development Centre, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cao J (2004) Options for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions in Guiyang, China: a cost-ancillary benefit analysis, Research Report No. 2004-RR2. Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cao J, Ho MS, Jorgenson DW (2008) “Co-benefits” of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Policies in China – An Integrated Top-down and Bottom-up Modeling Analysis. Environment for Development Discussion Paper Series, DP 08-10Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Carraro C, Siniscalco D (1993) Strategies for the international protection of the environment. J Public Econ 52:309–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chen W, Wu Z, He J, Gao P, Xu S (2007) Carbon emission control strategies for China: a comparative study with partial and general equilibrium versions of the China MARKAL model. Energy 32:59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cifuentes LA, Sauma E, Jorquera H, Soto F (2000) Preliminary estimation of the potential ancillary benefits for Chile. In: OECD (ed) Ancillary benefits and costs of greenhouse gas mitigation. OECD, Paris, pp 237–261Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cifuentes L, Borja-Aburto VH, Gouveia N, Thurston G, Davis DL (2001) Assessing the health benefits of urban air pollution reductions associated with climate change mitigation (2000–2020): Santiago, São Paulo, México city, and New York city. Environ Health Perspect 109:419–425Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cornes RC, Sandler T (1996) The theory of externalities, public goods and club goods. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dadi Z, Yingyi S, Yuan G, Chandler W, Logan J (2000) Developing countries and global climate change: electric power options in China. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Danziger L, Schnytzer A (1991) Implementing the Lindahl voluntary-exchange mechanism. Eur J Polit Econ 7:55–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dessai S, Michaelowa A (2001) Burden sharing and cohesion countries in European climate policy: the Portuguese example. Climate Policy 1:327–341Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dessai S, Schipper EL (2003) The Marrakech accords to the Kyoto Protocol: analysis and future prospects. Glob Environ Change 13:149–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dessus S, O’Connor D (2003) Climate policy without tears: CGE-based ancillary benefits estimates for Chile. Environ Resour Econ 25:287–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dhakal S (2003) Implications of transportation policies on energy and environment in Kathmandu valley, Nepal. Energ Policy 31:1493–1507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dickinson RE, Cicerone RJ (1986) Future global warming from atmospheric trace gases. Nature 319:109–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    EC (Commission of the European Communities) (2000) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on EU policies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: towards a European Climate Change Programme (ECCP), COM (2000) 88 Final. Commission of the European Communities, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ecchia G, Mariotti M (1998) Coalition formation in international agreements and the role of institutions. Eur Econ Rev 42:573–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Edenhofer O, Knopf B, Luderer G, Steckel J, Bruckner T (2010) “More heat than light? On the economics of decarbonisation”. In: John KD, Rübbelke DTG (eds) Sustainable energy. Routledge, London, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Elbakidze L, McCarl BA (2007) Sequestration offsets versus direct emission reductions: consideration of environmental co-effects. Ecol Econ 60:564–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Enquete-Kommission (1990) Schutz der Erde – Eine Bestandsaufnahme mit Vorschlägen zu einer neuen Energiepolitik, Dritter Bericht der Enquete-Kommission “Vorsorge zum Schutz der Erdatmosphäre“des 11. Deutschen Bundestages, Teilband 1, BonnGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Enquete-Kommission (1995) Mehr Zukunft für die Erde – Nachhaltige Energiepolitik für dauerhaften Klimaschutz, Schlußbericht der Enquete-Kommission “Schutz der Erdatmosphäre“des 12. Deutschen Bundestages, BonnGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Eskeland GS, Xie J (1998) Acting globally while thinking locally: is the global environment protected by transport emission control programs? J Appl Econ 1:385–411Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Eyckmans J, Finus M (2007) Measures to enhance the success of global climate treaties. Int Environ Agreements 7:73–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fearnside PM (2001) Saving tropical forests as a global warming countermeasure: an issue that divides the environmental movement. Ecol Econ 39:167–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Finus M, Rübbelke DTG (2008) Coalition formation and the ancillary benefits of climate policy, FEEM Working Paper No. 62. 2008. FEEM, MilanGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Garbaccio RF, Ho MS, Jorgenson DW (2000) The health benefits of controlling carbon emissions in China. In: OECD (ed) Ancillary benefits and costs of greenhouse gas mitigation. OECD, Paris, pp 343–376Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gielen D, Chen C (2001) The CO2 emission reduction benefits of Chinese energy policies and environmental policies: a case study for Shanghai, period 1995–2020. Ecol Econ 39:257–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Glachant M, de Muizon G (2006) Climate Change Agreements in the UK: a successful policy experience? In: Morgenstern RA, Pizer WD (eds) Reality check: the nature and performance of voluntary environmental programs in the United States, Europe and Japan. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, pp 64–85Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Guttman JM (1978) Understanding collective action: matching behavior. Am Econ Rev 68:251–255Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Guttman JM (1987) A non-Cournot model of voluntary collective action. Economica 54:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Halsnæs K, Olhoff A (2005) International markets for greenhouse gas emission reduction policies – possibilities for integrating developing countries. Energ Policy 33:2313–2325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hauert C, Doebeli M (2004) Spatial structure often inhibits the evolution of cooperation in the snowdrift game. Nature 428:643–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Heggelund GM, Buan IF (2009) China in the Asia–Pacific Partnership: consequences for UN climate change mitigation efforts? Int Environ Agreements 9:301–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ho MS, Nielsen CP (2007) Clearing the air: the health and economic damages of air pollution in China. MIT, LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Houghton JT (1997) Global warming: the complete briefing. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    IPCC (1996) Climate change 1995 – the science of climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    IPCC (2001) Climate change 2001 – mitigation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007 – the physical science basis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kan H, Chen B, Chen C, Fu Q, Chen M (2004) An evaluation of public health impact of ambient air pollution under various energy scenarios in Shanghai, China. Atmos Environ 38:95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen SI, van Asselt H (2009) Introduction: exploring and explaining the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. Int Environ Agreements 9:195–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Lal R (2004) Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global change and food security. Science 304:1623–1627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Laroui F, Tellegen E, Tourilova K (2004) Joint implementation in energy between the EU and Russia: outlook and potential. Energ Policy 32:899–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Larson ED, Wu Z, DeLaquil P, Chen W, Gao P (2003) Future implications of China’s energy-technology choices. Energ Policy 31:1189–1204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Lawrence P (2009) Australian climate policy and the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP). From Howard to Rudd: continuity or change? Int Environ Agreements 9:281–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Li JC (2006) A multi-period analysis of a carbon tax including local health feedback: an application to Thailand. Environ Dev Econ 11:317–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Lipman BL (1986) Cooperation among egoists in Prisoners’ Dilemma and Chicken games. Public Choice 51:315–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lipnowski I, Maital S (1983) Voluntary provision of a pure public good as the game of ‘chicken’. J Public Econ 20:381–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Markandya A, Armstrong BG, Hales S, Chiabai A, Criqui P, Mima S, Tonne C, Wilkinson P (2009) Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: low-carbon electricity generation. Lancet 374:2006–2015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Markandya A, Rübbelke DTG (2004) Ancillary benefits of climate policy. Jahrb Natl Stat 224:488–503Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    McGee J, Taplin R (2006) The Asia–Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate: a complement or competitor to the Kyoto Protocol? Glob Change Peace Secur 18:173–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    McGee J, Taplin R (2009) The role of the Asia Pacific Partnership in discursive contestation of the international climate regime. Int Environ Agreements 9:213–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    McKinley G, Zuk M, Höjer M, Avalos M, González I, Iniestra R, Laguna I, Martínez MA, Osnaya P, Reynales LM, Valdés R, Martínez J (2005) Quantification of local and global benefits from air pollution control in Mexico city. Environ Sci Technol 39:1954–1961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Mestl HES, Aunan K, Fang J, Seip HM, Skjelvik JM, Vennemo H (2005) Cleaner production as climate investment: integrated assessment in Taiyuan city, China. J Cleaner Prod 13:57–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Molina MJ, Rowland FS (1974) Stratospheric sink for chlorofluoromethanes: chlorine atom-catalysed destruction of ozone. Nature 249:810–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Morgenstern R, Krupnick A, Zhang X (2004) The ancillary carbon benefits of SO2 reductions from a small-boiler policy in Taiyuan, PRC. J Environ Dev 13:140–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Nordhaus WD (1998) Is the Kyoto Protocol a Dead Duck? Are There Any Live Ducks Around? Comparison of Alternative Global Tradeable Emission Regimes. Preliminary version of the paper presented at the Snowmass Workshop on Architectural Issues in the Design of Climate Change Policy Instruments and Institutions, Yale University, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Nordhaus WD (2006) After Kyoto: alternative mechanisms to control global warming. Am Econ Rev 96:31–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    O’Connor D, Zhai F, Aunan K, Berntsen T, Vennemo H (2003) Agricultural and human health impacts of climate policy in China: a general equilibrium analysis with special reference to Guangdong, Technical Papers No. 206. OECD, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Ojea E, Nunes PALD, Loureiro ML (2010) Mapping biodiversity indicators and assessing biodiversity values in global forests. Environ Resour Econ 47(3):329–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Pearce D (1992) Secondary Benefits of Greenhouse Gas Control, CSERGE Working Paper 92-12, LondonGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Pearce D (2000) Policy framework for the ancillary benefits of climate change policies. In: OECD (ed) Ancillary benefits and costs of greenhouse gas mitigation. OECD, Paris, pp 517–560Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Peng CY (2000) Integrating Local, Regional and Global Assessment in China's Air Pollution Control Policy, CIES Working Paper No. 23Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Pezzey JCV, Jotzo F, Quiggin J (2008) Fiddling while carbon burns: why climate policy needs pervasive emission pricing as well as technology promotion. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 52:97–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Pittel K, Rübbelke DTG (2008) Climate policy and ancillary benefits – a survey and integration into the modelling of international negotiations on climate change. Ecol Econ 68:210–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Pittel K, Rübbelke DTG (2011) Transitions in the negotiations on climate change: from prisoners’ dilemma to chicken and beyond. Int Environ Agreements (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Rabin M (1993) Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. Am Econ Rev 83:1281–1302Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Rapoport A, Chammah AM (1966) The game of chicken. Am Behav Sci 10:10–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Rive N, Rübbelke DTG (2010) International environmental policy and poverty alleviation. Rev World Econ 146:515–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Rübbelke DTG (2002) International climate policy to combat global warming – an analysis of the ancillary benefits of reducing carbon emissions. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, NorthamptonGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Rübbelke D (2006) An analysis of an international environmental matching agreement. Environ Econ Policy Stud 8:1–31Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Rübbelke D, Vögele S (2011) Impacts of climate change on European critical infrastructures: the case of the power sector. Environ Sci Policy 14:53–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Samuelson PA (1954) The pure theory of public expenditure. Rev Econ Stat 36:387–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Samuelson PA (1955) Diagrammatic exposition of a theory of public expenditure. Rev Econ Stat 37:350–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Sandler T (1997) Global challenges – an approach to environmental, political, and economic problems. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Sandler T, Sargent K (1995) Management of transnational commons: coordination, publicness, and treaty formation. Land Econ 71:145–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Shrestha RM, Malla S, Liyanage MH (2007) Scenario-based analyses of energy system development and Its environmental implications in Thailand. Energ Policy 35:3179–3193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Smith B (1998) Ethics of Du Pont’s CFC strategy 1975–1995. J Bus Ethics 17:557–568Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Smith KR, Haigler E (2008) Co-benefits of climate mitigation and health protection in energy systems: scoping methods. Annu Rev Public Health 29:11–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Smith S, Swierzbinski J (2007) Assessing the performance of the UK Emissions Trading Scheme. Environ Resour Econ 37:131–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Smith SJ, Wigley TML (2000) Global warming potentials: 1. Climatic implications of emissions reductions. Clim Change 44:445–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Snyder GH (1971) ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’ and ‘Chicken’ models in international politics. Int Stud Q 15:66–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Stern N (2007) The economics of climate change – the stern review. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Van Vuuren DP, Fengqi Z, de Vries B, Kejun J, Graveland C, Yun L (2003) Energy and emission scenarios for China in the 21st Century – exploration of baseline development and mitigation options. Energy Policy 31:369–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Vennemo H, Aunan K, Jinghua F, Holtedahl P, Tao H, Seip HM (2006) Domestic environmental benefits of China’s energy-related CDM potential. Clim Change 75:215–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Wang X, Smith KR (1999) Near-term health benefits of greenhouse gas reductions: a proposed assessment method and application in two energy sectors of China. WHO/PHE/99.1, World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Wang X, Smith KR (1999) Secondary benefits of greenhouse gas control: health impacts in China. Environ Sci Technol 33:3056–3061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    WCED (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    West JJ, Osnaya P, Laguna I, Martínez J, Fernández A (2004) Co-control of urban air pollutants and greenhouse gases in Mexico city. Environ Sci Technol 38:3474–3481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Zhang ZX (2000) Estimating the size of the potential market for the Kyoto Flexibility mechanisms. Rev World Econ 136:491–521Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Zhang ZX (2006) Towards an effective implementation of CDM projects in China. Energ Policy 34:3691–3701CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karen Pittel
    • 1
  • Dirk Rübbelke
    • 2
    • 3
  • Martin Altemeyer-Bartscher
    • 4
  1. 1.Ifo Institute for Economic Research and University of MunichMunichGermany
  2. 2.Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3)BilbaoSpain
  3. 3.IKERBASQUE, Basque Foundation for ScienceBilbaoSpain
  4. 4.Department of EconomicsChemnitz University of TechnologyChemnitzGermany

Personalised recommendations