Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/53317
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBosetti, Valentinaen_US
dc.contributor.authorCarraro, Carloen_US
dc.contributor.authorTavoni, Massimoen_US
dc.date.accessioned2011-01-13en_US
dc.date.accessioned2011-12-15T11:33:02Z-
dc.date.available2011-12-15T11:33:02Z-
dc.date.issued2008en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10419/53317-
dc.description.abstractThis paper analyses the cost implications for climate policy in developed countries if developing countries are unwilling to adopt measures to reduce their own GHG emissions. First, we assume that a 450 CO2 (550 CO2e) ppmv stabilisation target is to be achieved and that Non Annex1 (NA1) countries decide to delay their GHG emission reductions by 30 years. What would be the cost difference between this scenario and a case in which both developed and developing countries start reducing their emissions at the same time? Then, we look at a scenario in which the timing of developing countries' participation is uncertain and again we compute the costs of climate policy in developed and developing countries. We find that delayed participation of NA1 countries has a negative impact on climate policy costs. Economic inefficiencies can be as large as 10-25 TlnUSD. However, this additional cost wanes when developing countries are allowed to trade emission reductions from their baseline emission paths during the 30-year delay period. Thus, irrespective of whether NA1 countries are immediately assigned an emission reduction target or not, they should nonetheless be included in a global carbon market. Technology deployment is also affected by the timing of developing countries' mitigation measures. Delayed NA1-country participation in a climate agreement would scale down the deployment of coal with CCS throughout the century. On the other hand, innovation in the form of energy R&D investments would be positively affected, since it would become crucial in developed countries. Finally, uncertainty about the timing of NA1-country participation does not modify the optimal abatement strategy for developed countries and does not alter policy costs as long as a global carbon market is in place.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisher|aFondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM) |cMilanoen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseries|aNota di lavoro // Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei: Sustainable development |x70.2008en_US
dc.subject.jelC72en_US
dc.subject.jelH23en_US
dc.subject.jelQ25en_US
dc.subject.jelQ28en_US
dc.subject.ddc330en_US
dc.subject.keywordDelayed Actionen_US
dc.subject.keywordClimate Policyen_US
dc.subject.keywordStabilisation Costsen_US
dc.subject.keywordUncertain Participationen_US
dc.titleDelayed participation of developing countries to climate agreements: should action in the EU and US be postponed?en_US
dc.typeWorking Paperen_US
dc.identifier.ppn643917497en_US
dc.rightshttp://www.econstor.eu/dspace/Nutzungsbedingungenen_US

Files in This Item:
File
Size





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.