IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/tcpoxx/v1y2001i4p481-497.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Differentiation of mitigation commitments: the multi-sector convergence approach

Author

Listed:
  • Jos Sijm
  • Jaap Jansen
  • Asbj�rn Torvanger

Abstract

This paper presents a new sector-based framework-called the multi-sector convergence approach-for negotiating binding national GHG mitigation targets after the first budget period defined by the Kyoto Protocol (2008-2012). The major characteristics of this approach are that: (i) it is based on the distinction of different sectors within the national economy; (ii) it prescribes that, in principle, the amount of per capita emission assignments should ultimately converge to the same level for all countries; (iii) it accounts for differences in national circumstances by offering the opportunity to grant additional emission allowances to countries facing specific circumstances that justify higher emission assignments; and (iv) it offers a framework for negotiating mitigation commitments among parties of the UNFCCC, including a (gradual) participation of developing countries that pass a certain threshold level of per capita emissions. In addition to briefly discussing the underlying principles of promising proposals to differentiate future GHG mitigation commitments, the paper outlines the methodology and major characteristics of the multi-sector convergence (MSC) approach, followed by some numerical illustrations. The paper is concluded by a preliminary assessment of the MSC approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Jos Sijm & Jaap Jansen & Asbj�rn Torvanger, 2001. "Differentiation of mitigation commitments: the multi-sector convergence approach," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(4), pages 481-497, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:tcpoxx:v:1:y:2001:i:4:p:481-497
    DOI: 10.3763/cpol.2001.0149
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3763/cpol.2001.0149
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3763/cpol.2001.0149?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. C�dric Philibert & Jonathan Pershing, 2001. "Considering the options: climate targets for all countries," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 211-227, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zhou, P. & Wang, M., 2016. "Carbon dioxide emissions allocation: A review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 47-59.
    2. Streimikiene, Dalia & Girdzijauskas, Stasys, 2009. "Assessment of post-Kyoto climate change mitigation regimes impact on sustainable development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 129-141, January.
    3. Streimikiene, Dalia, 2008. "The role of nuclear energy in Lithuania under various post-Kyoto climate change mitigation regimes," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 33(7), pages 1005-1014.
    4. Drupp, Moritz A. & Baumgärtner, Stefan & Meyer, Moritz & Quaas, Martin F. & von Wehrden, Henrik, 2020. "Between Ostrom and Nordhaus: The research landscape of sustainability economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    5. Streimikiene, Dalia, 2012. "The impact of international GHG trading regimes on penetration of new energy technologies and feasibility to implement EU Energy and Climate Package targets," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 2172-2177.
    6. de Coninck, Heleen & Fischer, Carolyn & Newell, Richard G. & Ueno, Takahiro, 2008. "International technology-oriented agreements to address climate change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 335-356, January.
    7. 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.
    8. Pan, Xunzhang & Teng, Fei & Wang, Gehua, 2014. "Sharing emission space at an equitable basis: Allocation scheme based on the equal cumulative emission per capita principle," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 1810-1818.
    9. 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.
    10. Pan, Xunzhang & Teng, Fei & Ha, Yuejiao & Wang, Gehua, 2014. "Equitable Access to Sustainable Development: Based on the comparative study of carbon emission rights allocation schemes," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 632-640.
    11. Rodríguez-Benavides, Domingo & Andrés-Rosales, Roldán & Álvarez-García, José & Bekun, Festus Víctor, 2024. "Convergence of clubs between per capita carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and cement production," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).

    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. Thomas Jobert & Fatih Karanfil & Anna Tykhonenko, 2012. "Trade and Environment: Further Empirical Evidence from Heterogeneous Panels Using Aggregate Data," GREDEG Working Papers 2012-15, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    2. Wenhui Tian & Pascal da Costa & Jean-Claude Bocquet, 2015. "Inequalities of Sectors CO 2 emissions in China, USA and France, 2010-2050," Working Papers hal-01219769, HAL.
    3. Frank Jotzo & John C. V. Pezzey, 2006. "Optimal Intensity Targets for Greenhouse Emissions Trading Under Uncertainty," Economics and Environment Network Working Papers 0605, Australian National University, Economics and Environment Network.
    4. Max Meulemann, 2017. "An Empirical Assessment Of Components Of Climate Architectures," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 8(04), pages 1-36, November.
    5. Ebohon, Obas John & Ikeme, Anthony Jekwu, 2006. "Decomposition analysis of CO2 emission intensity between oil-producing and non-oil-producing sub-Saharan African countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(18), pages 3599-3611, December.
    6. Jinhua Zhao, 2022. "Aggregate emission intensity targets: Applications to the Paris Agreement," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 60(4), pages 1875-1897, October.
    7. Kuntsi-Reunanen, E., 2007. "A comparison of Latin American energy-related CO2 emissions from 1970 to 2001," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 586-596, January.
    8. Piero Morseletto & Frank Biermann & Philipp Pattberg, 2017. "Governing by targets: reductio ad unum and evolution of the two-degree climate target," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 655-676, October.
    9. Ernesto Aguayo-T鬬ez & Jos頍art󹑺-Navarro, 2013. "Internal and international migration in Mexico: 1995--2000," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(13), pages 1647-1661, May.
    10. 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.
    11. Groenenberg, Heleen & Blok, Kornelis & van der Sluijs, Jeroen, 2005. "Projection of energy-intensive material production for bottom-up scenario building," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 75-99, April.
    12. Katrin Rehdanz & Richard S.J. Tol, 2005. "A No Cap But Trade Proposal For Greenhous Gas Emission Reduction Targets For Brazil, China And India," Working Papers FNU-68, Research unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University, revised Jul 2005.
    13. Vazhayil, Joy P. & Balasubramanian, R., 2010. "Copenhagen commitments and implications: A comparative analysis of India and China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(11), pages 7442-7450, November.
    14. Frank Jotzo & John Pezzey, 2007. "Optimal intensity targets for greenhouse gas emissions trading under uncertainty," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(2), pages 259-284, October.
    15. Jan-Tjeerd Boom & Bouwe Dijkstra, 2009. "Permit Trading and Credit Trading: A Comparison of Cap-Based and Rate-Based Emissions Trading Under Perfect and Imperfect Competition," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(1), pages 107-136, September.
    16. Thomas Jobert & Fatih Karanfil & Anna Tykhonenko, 2014. "Estimating country-specific environmental Kuznets curves from panel data: a Bayesian shrinkage approach," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(13), pages 1449-1464, May.
    17. Derek Wang, 2017. "A Comparative Study of Firm-Level Climate Change Mitigation Targets in the European Union and the United States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-19, March.
    18. Clò, Stefano & Battles, Susan & Zoppoli, Pietro, 2013. "Policy options to improve the effectiveness of the EU emissions trading system: A multi-criteria analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 477-490.
    19. Frank Jotzo & John C. V. Pezzey, 2005. "Optimal intensity targets for emissions trading under uncertainty (now replaced by EEN0605)," Economics and Environment Network Working Papers 0504, Australian National University, Economics and Environment Network.
    20. Konidari, Popi & Mavrakis, Dimitrios, 2007. "A multi-criteria evaluation method for climate change mitigation policy instruments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(12), pages 6235-6257, December.

    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:taf:tcpoxx:v:1:y:2001:i:4:p:481-497. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/tcpo20 .

    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.