Zhang, ZhongXiang (2001): An economic assessment of the Kyoto Protocol using a global model based on the marginal abatement costs of 12 regions.
Download (122kB) | Preview
The Kyoto Protocol incorporates emissions trading, joint implementation and the clean development mechanism to help Annex 1 countries to meet their Kyoto targets at a lower overall cost. Using a global model based on the marginal abatement costs of 12 countries and regions, this paper estimates the contributions of the three Kyoto flexibility mechanisms to meet the total greenhouse gas emissions reductions required of Annex 1 countries under the three trading scenarios respectively. Our results clearly demonstrate that the fewer the restrictions on the use of flexibility mechanisms the gains from their use are greater. The gains are unevenly distributed, however, with Annex 1 countries that have the highest autarkic marginal abatement costs tending to benefit the most. Our results also indicate that restrictions on the use of flexibility mechanisms not only reduce potential of the Annex 1 countries’ efficiency gains, but also are not beneficial to developing countries because they restrict the total financial flows to developing countries under the clean development mechanism.
|Item Type:||MPRA Paper|
|Original Title:||An economic assessment of the Kyoto Protocol using a global model based on the marginal abatement costs of 12 regions|
|Keywords:||Marginal abatement costs; Emissions trading; Clean development mechanism; Joint implementation; Kyoto Protocol; Greenhouse gases|
|Subjects:||Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q52 - Pollution Control Adoption Costs; Distributional Effects; Employment Effects
R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics > R1 - General Regional Economics > R13 - General Equilibrium and Welfare Economic Analysis of Regional Economies
Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q4 - Energy > Q48 - Government Policy
Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q54 - Climate; Natural Disasters; Global Warming
Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q58 - Government Policy
Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q4 - Energy > Q43 - Energy and the Macroeconomy
|Depositing User:||ZhongXiang Zhang|
|Date Deposited:||04. Feb 2009 00:26|
|Last Modified:||13. Feb 2013 17:59|
Austin, D., P. Faeth, R.S. da Motta, C.E.F. Young, C. Ferraz, J. Zou, J. Li, M. Pathak and L. Srivastava (1998), Opportunities for Financing Sustainable Development via the CDM: A Discussion Draft. Presented at a Side-Event of the Fourth Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC, 7 November, Buenos Aires.
Brooke, A., D. Kendrick and A. Meeraus (1996), GAMS Release 2.25: A User’s Guide, GAMS Development Corporation, Washington, DC 20007.
Edmonds, J., C. MacCracken, R. Sands and S. Kim (1998), Unfinished Business: The Economics of the Kyoto Protocol, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy.
Ellerman, A.D. and A. Decaux (1998), Analysis of Post-Kyoto CO2 Emissions Trading Using Marginal Abatement Curves, MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report No. 40, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Ellerman, A.D. and I.S. Wing (2000), Supplementarity: An Invitation to Monopsony?, MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report No. 59, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
European Union (1999), Community Strategy on Climate Change: Council Conclusions, No. 8346/99, 18 May, Brussels.
Haites, E. (1998), Estimate of the Potential Market for Cooperative Mechanisms 2010, Margaree Consultants Inc., Toronto, Canada.
IPCC (1996), Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovern¬mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Cambridge.
McKibbin, W.J., M.T. Ross, R. Shackleton and P.J. Wilcoxen (1999), Emissions Trading, Capital Flows and the Kyoto Protocol, Presented at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group III Expert Meeting on the Economic Impacts of Annex 1 Mitigation Policies on non-Annex 1 Countries, 27-28 May, The Hague.
Tulpulé, V., S. Brown, J. Lim, C. Polidano, H. Pant and B.S. Fisher (1998), An Economic Assessment of the Kyoto Protocol Using the Global Trade and Environment Model, Presented at the OECD Workshop on the Economic Modelling of Climate Change, 17-18 September, Paris.
UNFCCC (1997), Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), FCCC/CP/1997/L.7/Add.1, Bonn.
UNFCCC (1998), Review of the Implementation of Commitments and of other Provisions of the Convention. Activities Implemented Jointly: Review of Progress under the Pilot Phase (Decision 5/CP.1), Second Synthesis Report on Activities Implemented, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), FCCC/CP/1998/2, Bonn.
US Administration (1998), The Kyoto Protocol and the President’s Policies to Address Climate Change: Administration Economic Analysis, Washington, DC.
Van der Mensbrugghe, D. (1998), A (Preliminary) Analysis of the Kyoto Protocol: Using the OECD GREEN Model, Presented at the OECD Workshop on the Economic Modelling of Climate Change, 17-18 September, Paris.
Vrolijk, C. (1999), The Potential Size of the CDM, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trader, No. 6, UNCTAD, Geneva, pp. 2-4.
Weyant, J.P. (ed., 1999), The Cost of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation, Energy Journal 20 (Special Issue), pp. 1-398.
Zhang, Z.X. (1999), Estimating the Size of the Potential Market for All Three Flexibility Mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol, Report Prepared for the Asian Development Bank under Contract TA-5592-REG.
Zhang, Z.X. (2001), An Assessment of the EU Proposal for Ceilings on the Use of Kyoto Flexibility Mechanisms, Ecological Economics 37(1), pp. 53-69.