The Economic Implications of International Climate Change Policy

Brown, S.; Feng, Lintong; Kennedy, Darren; Fisher, Brian S.

doi:10.1071/aj96069

Cited by 6 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This prospect has led several analysts to express concern that market power would have a detrimental effect on the cost-reducing services of international emissions trading (e.g. IPCC, 1996, Westskog, 1996, Brown et al, 1997, Baron, 1999, and Burniaux, 1999). One way of preventing this outcome would be to require (large) countries to delegate the right to trade internationally to domestic firms (ABARE, 1995).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Market Power in International Carbon Emissions Trading: A Laboratory Test

Carlén

2003

The Energy Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change is an organization for research, independent policy analysis, and public education in global environmental change. It seeks to provide leadership in understanding scientific, economic, and ecological aspects of this difficult issue, and combining them into policy assessments that serve the needs of ongoing national and international discussions. To this end, the Program brings together an interdisciplinary group from two established research centers at MIT: the Center for Global Change Science (CGCS) and the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research (CEEPR). These two centers bridge many key areas of the needed intellectual work, and additional essential areas are covered by other MIT departments, by collaboration with the Ecosystems Center of the Marine Biology Laboratory (MBL) at Woods Hole, and by short-and long-term visitors to the Program. The Program involves sponsorship and active participation by industry, government, and non-profit organizations.To inform processes of policy development and implementation, climate change research needs to focus on improving the prediction of those variables that are most relevant to economic, social, and environmental effects. In turn, the greenhouse gas and atmospheric aerosol assumptions underlying climate analysis need to be related to the economic, technological, and political forces that drive emissions, and to the results of international agreements and mitigation. Further, assessments of possible societal and ecosystem impacts, and analysis of mitigation strategies, need to be based on realistic evaluation of the uncertainties of climate science.This report is one of a series intended to communicate research results and improve public understanding of climate issues, thereby contributing to informed debate about the climate issue, the uncertainties, and the economic and social implications of policy alternatives. Titles in the Report Series to date are listed on the inside back cover. Market Power in International Carbon Emissions Trading: A Laboratory TestBjörn Carlén † AbstractThe prospect that governments of one or a few large countries, or trading blocs, would engage in international greenhouse gas emissions trading has led several policy analysts to express concerns that trade would be influenced by market power. The experiment reported here mimics a case where twelve countries, one of which is a large buyer (the mirror-image of a large seller), trade carbon emissions on an emissions exchange (a double-auction market) and where traders have quite accurate information about the underlying net demand. The findings deviate from those of the standard version of market power effects in that trade volumes and prices converge on competitive levels.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Market Power in International Carbon Emissions Trading: A Laboratory Test

Carlén

2003

The Energy Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The concept was largely developed and modelled in Australia (see Brown et al . ; Fisher et al . ; Polidano et al .…”

Section: Economic Models and Climate Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Antipodean agricultural and resource economics at 60: climate change policy and energy transition

Fisher¹

2016

Aus J Agri & Res Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Australian and New Zealand agricultural and resource economics profession has made a significant contribution in the field of climate policy and analysis of the energy sector. Much of this contribution has been based on quantitative economic modelling which had its roots in the earlier computable general equilibrium modelling on domestic policy and trade in which the profession was heavily involved from the 1970s onwards. By far the largest share of model development and analysis has been sponsored by government and conducted in the public sector, but in more recent years, there has been some shift into the private sector. However, the trend to the use of much more complex integrated assessment models in assessing the impacts of climate change and responses to new policy instruments raises the issue of whether more government support of quantitative modelling will be required in future.

show abstract

“…Despite the importance of reforestation and deforestation to the end outcome, in the analyses prepared in the lead up to Kyoto, LULUCF was completely excluded (ABARE and DFAT ; Brown et al. ). ABARE's report on the impact of the Protocol that was released in 1999 also did not model LULUCF; even the impacts of Article 3.7(2) were omitted (Brown et al.…”

Section: First Commitment Period and The Kyoto Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite the importance of reforestation and deforestation to the end outcome, in the analyses prepared in the lead up to Kyoto, LULUCF was completely excluded (ABARE and DFAT 1995;Brown et al 1997). ABARE's report on the impact of the Protocol that was released in 1999 also did not model LULUCF; even the impacts of Article 3.7(2) were omitted (Brown et al 1999 The treatment of LULUCF in the Kyoto studies raises a question about whether cost comparisons in burden sharing should be based on the lowest possible ways of reducing emissions or whether there should be some scope to exclude abatement opportunities if they are considered inconvenient or otherwise unachievable.…”

Section: First Commitment Period and The Kyoto Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mitigation Targets, Burden Sharing and the Role of Economic Modeling in Climate Policy

Macintosh

2014

Aust J Public Adm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within Australian climate policy, the dominant framework for determining national emission reduction targets has been ‘burden sharing’. The prevailing view, both within and outside government, has been that there should be a rough equivalence in the costs that countries bear in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, at least where countries share similar wealth and capacity traits. This article looks at the practical problems with this approach that stem from its reliance on economic modeling. It is contended that any principled approach to target setting should strive for objectivity but that burden sharing based on projected welfare losses cannot provide this. To illustrate the fallibility of the economic projections that are done for these purposes, the article reviews how one of the greenhouse reporting sectors, known as land use, land‐use change and forestry, has been dealt with in the modelling exercises that have been done in Australia for climate policy purposes.

show abstract

The Economic Implications of International Climate Change Policy

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Market Power in International Carbon Emissions Trading: A Laboratory Test

Market Power in International Carbon Emissions Trading: A Laboratory Test

Antipodean agricultural and resource economics at 60: climate change policy and energy transition

Mitigation Targets, Burden Sharing and the Role of Economic Modeling in Climate Policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About