Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-dwch4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-26T10:12:31.756Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Climate policy and equity principles: fair burden sharing in a dynamic world

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 May 2013

Lucas Bretschger
Lucas Bretschger*
Affiliation:
Centre of Economic Research at ETH Zurich (CER-ETH), ZUE F7, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland. Tel: + 41 44 632 21 92. Fax:  + 41 44 632 13 62. E-mail: lbretschger@ethz.ch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper argues that negotiation costs can prevent the international community from finding a new international climate agreement. To define a feasible way of facilitating the negotiation process, I analyze basic equity principles and their relationship to climate policy and economic development. Based on the most relevant principles, I propose a general synthetic rule for burden sharing in international climate policy. The rule avoids complexity and comprises both egalitarian and cost-sharing aspects, which appears to be crucial for achieving a climate agreement. Carbon budgets for the different countries are calculated under different parameter assumptions.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 18 , Issue 5 , October 2013 , pp. 517 - 536
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anthoff, D. and Tol, R. (2010), ‘On international equity weights and national decision making on climate change’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 60: 14–20.Google Scholar
Barrett, S. (2005), ‘The theory of international environmental agreements’, in Mäler, K.-G. and Vincent, J.R. (eds), Handbook of Environmental Economics, Volume 3, Amsterdam: Elsevier, chapter 28.Google Scholar
BASIC (2011), ‘Equitable access to sustainable development: contribution to the body of scientific knowledge’, BASIC expert group, Beijing, Brasilia, Cape Town and Mumbai.Google Scholar
Blanford, G.J., Richels, R.G., and Rutherford, T.F. (2008), ‘Why post-Kyoto climate policy must look East’, Discussion Paper No. 08-06, Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Bode, S. (2004), ‘Equal emissions per capita over time–a proposal to combine responsibility and equity of rights for post-2012 GHG emission entitlement allocation’, European Environment 14(5): 300–316.Google Scholar
Bosello, F., Buchner, B., and Carraro, C. (2003), ‘Equity, development, and climate change control’, Journal of the European Economic Association 1(2/3): 601–611.Google Scholar
Bosetti, V. and Frankel, J. (2009), ‘Global climate policy architecture and political feasibility: specific formulas and emission targets to attain 460 PPM CO2 concentrations’, Discussion Paper No. 09-30, Harvard Project on Climate Agreements, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Bretschger, L. and Suphaphiphat, N. (2012), ‘Use less, pay more: can climate policy address the unfortunate event for being poor?’, Economics Working Paper Series No. 12/166, CER-ETH, Zurich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bretschger, L. and Valente, S. (2011), ‘Climate change and uneven development’, Scandinavian Journal of Economics 113(4): 825–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bretschger, L., Ramer, R., and Schwark, F. (2011), ‘Growth effects of carbon policies: applying a fully dynamic CGE model with heterogeneous capital’, Resource and Energy Economics 33(4): 963–980.Google Scholar
Cazorla, M. and Toman, M. (2000), ‘International equity and climate change policy’, Climate Issue Brief No. 27, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Clarke, L., Edmonds, J., Krey, V., Richels, R., Rose, S., and Tavoni, M. (2009), ‘International climate policy architectures: overview of the EMF 22 international scenarios’, Energy Economics 31: 64–81.Google Scholar
Gersbach, H. and Winkler, R. (2011), ‘International emission permits markets with refunding’, European Economic Review 55: 759–773.Google Scholar
Grasso, M. (2007), ‘A normative ethical framework in climate change’, Climatic Change 81(3): 223–246.Google Scholar
Johansson-Stenman, O. and Konow, J. (2010), ‘Fair air: distributive justice and environmental economics’, Environmental and Resource Economics 46: 147–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konow, J. (2003), ‘Which is the fairest one of all? A positive analysis of justice theories’, Journal of Economic Literature 41(4): 1188–1239.Google Scholar
Lange, A., Vogt, C., and Ziegler, A. (2007), ‘On the importance of equity in international climate policy: an empirical analysis’, Energy Economics 29: 545–562.Google Scholar
Lange, A., Löschel, A., Vogt, C., and Ziegler, A. (2010), ‘On the self-interested use of equity in international climate negotiations’, European Economic Review 54: 359–375.Google Scholar
Mattoo, A. and Subramanian, A. (2010), ‘Equity in climate change’, Policy Research Working Paper No. 5383, World Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
McKibbin, W.J., Morris, A., and Wilcoxen, P.J. (2010), ‘Comparing climate commitments: a model-based analysis of the Copenhagen accord’, Discussion Paper No. 10-35, Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Meinshausen, M., Meinshausen, N., Hare, W., et al. (2009), ‘Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2° C’, Nature 458: 1158–1163.Google Scholar
Metz, B. (2000), ‘International equity in climate change policy’, Integrated Assessment 1(2): 111–126.Google Scholar
Odell, J.S. (2006), Negotiating Trade: Developing Countries in the WTO and NAFTA, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Page, E.A. (2008), ‘Distributing the burdens of climate change’, Environmental Politics 17(4): 556–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, E.A. and Weisbach, D.A. (2012), ‘International Paretianism: a defense’, University of Chicago Institute for Law & Economics Olin Research Paper No. 606, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Rose, A., Stevens, B., Edmonds, J., and Wise, M. (1998), ‘International equity and differentiation in global warming policy’, Environmental and Resource Economics 12: 25–51.Google Scholar
Schelling, T.C. (1980), The Strategy of Conflict, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schelling, T.C. (1995), ‘Intergenerational discounting’, Energy Policy 23(4/5): 395–401.Google Scholar
Tavoni, M., Chakravarty, S., and Socolow, R. (2012), ‘Safe vs. fair: a formidable trade-off in tackling climate change’, Sustainability 4: 210–226.Google Scholar
UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) (2011), ‘Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP)’, [Available at] http://unfccc.int/bodies/body/6645.php.Google Scholar
World Bank (2010), World Development Report 2010, Development and Climate Change, Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
World Bank (2012), WDI online, [Available at] http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators.Google Scholar