Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T22:49:04.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Regional variation, holdouts, and climate treaty negotiations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2013

J. Scott Holladay  and
Michael A. Livermore
J. Scott Holladay*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Tennessee; Fellow, Howard H. Baker Center
Michael A. Livermore
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
*
J. Scott Holladay, Department of Economics, University of Tennessee; Fellow, Howard H. Baker Center, Tel.: 865-974-3303 jhollad3@utk.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We develop a model of international agreements to price a transboundry externality and provide a new heuristic to aid in interpreting negotiation behavior. Under conservative assumptions, a country’s net benefits will be positive under an efficient pollution price if its share of global damages is less than half its share of worldwide abatement costs. We solve for a permit allocation scheme consistent with that heuristic such that every region will have positive net benefits in an agreement to price the pollution externality at the globally efficient level. We then apply this framework to climate change using regional data from Integrated Assessment Models and test the feasibility of a global climate change treaty. The results indicate that several regions have positive net benefits from a globally efficient price on carbon, including Western Europe, South Asia (including India), and Latin America. We then solve for a permit allocation scheme that should produce worldwide agreement on a climate treaty. Using the same model, we show that differential carbon taxes aimed at producing universal agreement would produce tax rate differences of an order of magnitude. We also argue that shares of global GDP might be an appropriate proxy for exposure to climate damages and find that a global climate treaty would be cost-benefit justified for all countries without transfers when that assumption is used.

Keywords

climate changedeveloping countriesinternational climate policytransboundry pollution

JEL classification

Q54: Climate • Natural Disasters and Their Management • Global Warming F51: International Conflicts • Negotiations • Sanctions H23: Externalities • Redistributive Effects • Environmental Taxes and Subsidies
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , 01 August 2013 , pp. 131 - 157
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis 2013

References

Ackerman, F., Stanton, E. A., & Bueno, R. (2010). Fat tails, exponents, extreme uncertainty: Simulating catastrophe in DICE. Ecological Economics 69(8), 1657–1665.Google Scholar
Barrett, S. (1994). Self-enforcing international environmental agreements. Oxford Economic Papers 46, 878–894.Google Scholar
Barrett, S. (2002). Consensus treaties. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE) 158(4), 529–547.Google Scholar
Barrett, S. (2005). The theory of international environmental agreements. In Maler, K. G. & Vincent, J. R. (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Economics (Vol. 3 of Handbook of Environmental Economics, chapter 28, pp. 1457–1516). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Barrett, S., & Stavins, R. (2003). Increasing participation and compliance in international climate change agreements. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 3(4), 349–376.Google Scholar
Bosetti, V., Carraro, C., De Cian, E., Massetti, E., & Tavoni, M. (2012). Incentives and stability of international climate coalitions: An integrated assessment. CEPR Discussion Papers 8821, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.Google Scholar
Bosetti, V., De Cian, E., Sgobbi, A., & Tavoni, M. (2009). The 2008 WITCH Model: New model features and baseline. FEEM Working Paper Series (085).Google Scholar
Bossetti, V., Carraro, C., Cian, E. D., Duval, R., Massetti, E., & Tavoni, M. (2009). The incentives to participate in and the stability of international climate coalitions: A game-theoretic approach using the WITCH model. OECD Economics Department Working Papers 702, OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
Bréchet, T., Gerard, F., & Tulkens, H. (2011). Efficiency vs. stability in climate coalitions: a conceptual and computational appraisal. Energy Journal 32(1), 49–76.Google Scholar
Carraro, C., Eyckmans, J., & Finus, M. (2006). Optimal transfers and participation decisions in international environmental agreements. The Review of International Organizations 1, 379–396.Google Scholar
Carraro, C., & Siniscalco, D. (1993). Strategies for the international protection of the environment. Journal of Public Economics 52(3), 309–328.Google Scholar
Chander, P., & Tulkens, H. (1992). Theoretical foundations of negotiations and cost sharing in transfrontier pollution problems. European Economic Review 36(2–3), 388–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Aspremont, C., Jacquemin, A., Gabszewicz, J. J., & Weymark, J. A. (1983). On the stability of collusive price leadership. The Canadian Journal of Economics 16(1), 17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellerman, A. Denny., & Decaux, A. (1998). Analysis of post-Kyoto CO2 emissions trading using marginal abatement curves, Working Paper Series 40, MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.Google Scholar
Eyckmans, J., & Tulkens, H. (2003). Simulating coalitionally stable burden sharing agreements for the climate change problem. Resource and Energy Economics 25(4), 299–327.Google Scholar
Fawcett, A. A. (2009). Waxman-Markey discussion draft preliminary analysis: EPA preliminary analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, Technical report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Atmospheric Programs.Google Scholar
Finus, M., Altamirano-Cabrera, J.-C., & Van Ierland, E. (2005). The effect of membership rules and voting schemes on the success of international climate agreements. Public Choice 125, 95–127.Google Scholar
Fischer, Carolyn, & Morgenstern, R. (2006). Carbon abatement costs: Why the wide range of estimates?. Energy Journal 27(2), 73–86.Google Scholar
Germain, M., Toint, P., Tulkens, H., & de Zeeuw, A. (2003). Transfers to sustain dynamic core-theoretic cooperation in international stock pollutant control. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 28(1), 79–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagashima, M., & Dellink, R. (2008). Technology spillovers and stability of international climate coalitions. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 8(4), 343–365.Google Scholar
Nordhaus, W., & Boyer, J. (2000). Warming the World: Economics Models of Global Warming, Boston, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Nordhaus, W. D. (2008). A question of balance: Weighing the options on global warming policies. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Rotillon, G., & Tazdat, T. (1996). International bargaining in the presence of global environmental change. Environmental & Resource Economics 8(3), 293–314.Google Scholar
Stern, N. (2006). The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tol, R. S. (2012). On the uncertainty about the total economic impact of climate change. Environmental and Resource Economics 53(1), 97–116.Google Scholar
Tol, R. S. J. (2005). The marginal damage costs of carbon dioxide emissions: an assessment of the uncertainties. Energy Policy 33(16), 2064–2074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tol, R. S. J. (2009). The economic effects of climate change. Journal of Economic Perspectives 23(2), 29–51.Google Scholar
Weitzman, M. L. (2009). On modeling and interpreting the economics of catastrophic climate change. The Review of Economics and Statistics 91(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weitzman, M. L. (2010). What is the “damages function” for global warming and what difference might it make?. Climate Change Economics 1(01), 57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar