IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/engenv/v16y2005i6p937-958.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Indicators for the Assessment of Member States' GHG Emission Trends and Burden Sharing Commitments: The Cohesion Countries

Author

Listed:
  • Pablo del Río
  • Félix Hernández

Abstract

Do Member States (MS) show clear signs that they are abating their GHG emissions? In view of recent trends in emissions, are the Burden Sharing Agreement targets too ambitious for the MS and, particularly, for the cohesion countries? Would this provide an argument for the revision of these targets? This paper tries to answer these questions, which have been asked in Europe at both the policy and academic level. It proposes and develops a set of indicators and applies them to the EU context, assessing the likely trends in GHG emissions in Europe. The main conclusion is that the cohesion countries should not ask for a renegotiation of targets. Their emissions have increased beyond their economic growth patterns because of the weak implementation of both institutional and technological measures aimed at GHG mitigation.

Suggested Citation

  • Pablo del Río & Félix Hernández, 2005. "Indicators for the Assessment of Member States' GHG Emission Trends and Burden Sharing Commitments: The Cohesion Countries," Energy & Environment, , vol. 16(6), pages 937-958, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:engenv:v:16:y:2005:i:6:p:937-958
    DOI: 10.1260/095830505775221588
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/095830505775221588
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1260/095830505775221588?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vesterdal, Morten & Svendsen, Gert Tinggaard, 2004. "How should greenhouse gas permits be allocated in the EU?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 961-968, June.
    2. Ridgley, Mark A, 1996. "Fair sharing of greenhouse gas burdens," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 517-529, June.
    3. Ringius, Lasse & Torvanger, Asbjorn & Holtsmark, Bjart, 1998. "Can multi-criteria rules fairly distribute climate burdens?: OECD results from three burden sharing rules," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(10), pages 777-793, August.
    4. Marcel M. Berk & Michel G.J. den Elzen, 2001. "Options for differentiation of future commitments in climate policy: how to realise timely participation to meet stringent climate goals?," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(4), pages 465-480, December.
    5. Lasse Ringius & Asbjørn Torvanger & Arild Underdal, 2002. "Burden Sharing and Fairness Principles in International Climate Policy," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 1-22, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhou, P. & Wang, M., 2016. "Carbon dioxide emissions allocation: A review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 47-59.
    2. Asbjørn Torvanger & Lasse Ringius, 2002. "Criteria for Evaluation of Burden-sharing Rules in International Climate Policy," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 221-235, September.
    3. Vaillancourt, Kathleen & Waaub, Jean-Philippe, 2004. "Equity in international greenhouse gases abatement scenarios: A multicriteria approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 153(2), pages 489-505, March.
    4. Zhu, Bangzhu & Jiang, Mingxing & He, Kaijian & Chevallier, Julien & Xie, Rui, 2018. "Allocating CO2 allowances to emitters in China: A multi-objective decision approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 441-451.
    5. Lecocq, Franck & Crassous, Renaud, 2003. "International climate regime beyond 2012 - are quota allocation rules robust to uncertainty?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3000, The World Bank.
    6. Aurélie Méjean & Franck Lecocq & Yacob Mulugetta, 2015. "Equity, burden sharing and development pathways: reframing international climate negotiations," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 387-402, November.
    7. Yi, Wen-Jing & Zou, Le-Le & Guo, Jie & Wang, Kai & Wei, Yi-Ming, 2011. "How can China reach its CO2 intensity reduction targets by 2020? A regional allocation based on equity and development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 2407-2415, May.
    8. E. Kuntsi‐Reunanen & J. Luukkanen, 2006. "Greenhouse gas emission reductions in the post‐Kyoto period: Emission intensity changes required under the ‘contraction and convergence’ approach," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 30(4), pages 272-279, November.
    9. Andries Hof & Michel Elzen & Detlef Vuuren, 2009. "Environmental effectiveness and economic consequences of fragmented versus universal regimes: what can we learn from model studies?," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 39-62, February.
    10. Kampas, Athanasios & Mamalis, Spyridon, 2006. "Assessing the Distributional Impacts of Transferable Pollution Permits: The Case of Phosphorus Pollution Management at a River Basin Scale," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 7(2), pages 1-12, July.
    11. Zhifu Mi & Hua Liao & D’Maris Coffman & Yi-Ming Wei, 2019. "Assessment of equity principles for international climate policy based on an integrated assessment model," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 95(1), pages 309-323, January.
    12. Ciardiello, F. & Genovese, A. & Simpson, A., 2019. "Pollution responsibility allocation in supply networks: A game-theoretic approach and a case study," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 217(C), pages 211-217.
    13. van Ruijven, Bas J. & Weitzel, Matthias & den Elzen, Michel G.J. & Hof, Andries F. & van Vuuren, Detlef P. & Peterson, Sonja & Narita, Daiju, 2012. "Emission allowances and mitigation costs of China and India resulting from different effort-sharing approaches," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 116-134.
    14. Brick, Kerri & Visser, Martine, 2015. "What is fair? An experimental guide to climate negotiations," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 79-95.
    15. Bao-Jun Tang & Yu-Jie Hu, 2019. "How to Allocate the Allowance for the Aviation Industry in China’s Emissions Trading System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-18, May.
    16. Lian-Biao Cui & Ma-Lin Song, 2017. "Designing and Forecasting the Differentiated Carbon Tax Scheme Based on the Principle of Ability to Pay," Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research (APJOR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 34(01), pages 1-25, February.
    17. Kawase, Reina & Matsuoka, Yuzuru, 2013. "Reduction targets under three burden-sharing schemes for 50% global GHG reduction toward 2050," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 1126-1138.
    18. A. F. Hof & M. G. J. Elzen & A. Mendoza Beltran, 2016. "The EU 40 % greenhouse gas emission reduction target by 2030 in perspective," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 375-392, June.
    19. Zhang, Yue-Jun & Wang, Ao-Dong & Da, Ya-Bin, 2014. "Regional allocation of carbon emission quotas in China: Evidence from the Shapley value method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 454-464.
    20. Laura Rodríguez-Fernández & Ana Belén Fernández Carvajal & María Bujidos-Casado, 2020. "Allocation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Using the Fairness Principle: A Multi-Country Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-15, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:engenv:v:16:y:2005:i:6:p:937-958. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.