IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/330976.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Does Non Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by the US Increase the Likelihood of Monopolistic Behavior by Russia in the Market of Tradable Permits?

Author

Listed:
  • Bernard, Alain L.
  • Vielle, Marc

Abstract

After the decision by the US not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the prospects on the actual working of the world carbon market change dramatically. While in the case of US participation, according to most evaluations, the equilibrium price in 2010 was expected to be in the range of 50 to 100 US$, after the recent US decision it would be considerably smaller, even close to zero in some scenarios. This reflects the fact that the emission credits allocated in excess to Russia and other CIS countries (Hot Air) will be approximately enough to satisfy the potential demand by Annex B countries, even if the latter implement a very modest –and a fortiori none- domestic abatement policy. In such a context, it is very likely that Russia and its Former Soviet Union partners adopt a concerted monopolistic behavior, and sell only a share of available excess permits, in order to maximize receipts. Such a behavior is not, under any circumstance, inconsistent with the Kyoto Protocol considering its provisions on banking, and the possible transfer of unused permits to later periods. The aim of the paper is to simulate the working of the world carbon emissions market under the assumption of monopolistic behavior by FSU. Successively are assessed two profit-maximization schemes, a static one and an inter-temporal. The latter requires to consider a long term horizon (2040), in order to assess the potential gains for FSU of an expected steady increase over time of carbon price. Simulations are implemented through an inter-temporal mathematical program of optimization calibrated on an Applied General Equilibrium model (GEMINI-E3). Beside the working of the carbon market – including the competition from other flexibility mechanisms, in particular the CDM- the optimization program simulates the behavior of all other countries, taken together, and the macro-economic effects in particular changes in the prices of international markets and the associated Gains from Terms of Trade. Over such a long period, many uncertainties affect the strategy of FSU. Most important are the potential of the CDM mechanism and the future of the Kyoto Protocol, which is critical in determining the value of carbon in the long run. Notwithstanding, some robust results are obtained. The first is that the market price of carbon in the short run is nearly insensitive to FSU long run strategy, but very sensitive to the potential of CDM. According to a realistic range for this potential, the market price would be in the interval of 45 to 90 US$90 in 2010. The second result concerns the macro-economic effects of US withdrawal. If, as it could be easily expected, emissions abatement at the world level is significantly reduced (nearly dropped to zero in the short run, more than halved in the long run), the welfare cost for other Annex B countries (except FSU) remains approximately unchanged. Effectively, the monopolistic power of FSU allows to sustain a high price of permits, implying a high cost of compliance of the commitments taken by Annex B countries in Kyoto, while a higher demand for fossil fuels limits the price decrease and the associated Gains from Terms of Trade for remaining Annex B countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Bernard, Alain L. & Vielle, Marc, 2002. "Does Non Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by the US Increase the Likelihood of Monopolistic Behavior by Russia in the Market of Tradable Permits?," Conference papers 330976, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:330976
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/330976/files/395.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Corden, W. Max., 1997. "Trade Policy and Economic Welfare," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780198775348.
    2. Falcon, Walter P., 2000. "Globalizing Germ Plasm: Barriers, Benefits and Boundaries," 2000 Conference, August 13-18, 2000, Berlin, Germany 197185, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. José Benjamin Falck-Zepeda & Greg Traxler & Robert G. Nelson, 2000. "Surplus Distribution from the Introduction of a Biotechnology Innovation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(2), pages 360-369.
    4. Anderson, Kym & Dimaranan, Betina & Hertel, Thomas W & Martin, Will, 1997. "Economic Growth and Policy Reform in the APEC Region: Trade and Welfare Implications by 2005," CEPR Discussion Papers 1605, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    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. Anderson, Kym & Yao, Shunli, 2001. "China, GMOs and World Trade in Agricultural and Textile Products," Conference papers 330922, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    2. Kym Anderson, 2005. "On the Virtues of Multilateral Trade Negotiations," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 81(255), pages 414-438, December.
    3. Deepthi Kolady & William Lesser, 2012. "Genetically-engineered crops and their effects on varietal diversity: a case of Bt eggplant in India," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 29(1), pages 3-15, March.
    4. Hervouet, Adrien & Langinier, Corinne, 2018. "Plant Breeders’ Rights, Patents, and Incentives to Innovate," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 43(1), January.
    5. Kym Anderson & Anna Strutt, 2012. "Agriculture and Food Security in Asia by 2030," Macroeconomics Working Papers 23309, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    6. Athukorala, Prema-chandra & Narayanan, Suresh, 2018. "Economic corridors and regional development: The Malaysian experience," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-14.
    7. Peter B. Dixon & Maureen T. Rimmer, 2010. "Optimal Tariffs: Should Australia Cut Automotive Tariffs Unilaterally?," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 86(273), pages 143-161, June.
    8. Genti Kostandini & Bradford F. Mills & Steven Were Omamo & Stanley Wood, 2009. "Ex ante analysis of the benefits of transgenic drought tolerance research on cereal crops in low‐income countries," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(4), pages 477-492, July.
    9. Bye, Brita & FæHn, Taran, 2011. "Promoting innovation and imitation in a small open economy: The role of human capital, R&D and trade," Conference papers 332158, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    10. Lucy Rees & Rod Tyers, 2004. "On the Robustness of Short Run Gains from Trade Reform," CEPR Discussion Papers 474, Centre for Economic Policy Research, Research School of Economics, Australian National University.
    11. Hareau, Guy Gaston & Norton, George W. & Mills, Bradford F. & Peterson, Everett B., 2004. "Potential Benefits Of Transgenic Rice In Asia: A General Equilibrium Approach," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20334, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    12. Falconi, Cesar A. & Omamo, Steven Were & d'Ieteren, Guy & Iraqi, Fuad, 2001. "An ex ante economic and policy analysis of research on genetic resistance to livestock disease: trypanosomosis in Africa," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 25(2-3), pages 153-163, September.
    13. Vincent Smith & Justus H. H. Wesseler & David Zilberman, 2021. "New Plant Breeding Technologies: An Assessment of the Political Economy of the Regulatory Environment and Implications for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, March.
    14. James Cassing & Stephen Tokarick, 2007. "Trade and growth in the presence of distortions," The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(4), pages 475-504.
    15. Elbehri, Aziz & Leetmaa, Susan E., 2001. "How Significant Are Export Subsidies To Agricultural Trade? Trade And Welfare Implications Of Global Reforms," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20518, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    16. Andre Nassif & Carmem Aparecida Feijo & Eliane Araújo, 2016. "Structural change, catching up and falling behind in the BRICS: A comparative analysis based on trade pattern and Thirlwall’s Law," PSL Quarterly Review, Economia civile, vol. 69(279), pages 373-421.
    17. Kaneda, Mitsuhiro, 2003. "Policy designs in a dynamic model of infant industry protection," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 91-115, October.
    18. Eric Tollens, 2004. "Biodiversity versus transgenic sugar beet: the one euro question," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 31(1), pages 1-18, March.
    19. Aziz Elbehri & Thomas Hertel & Will Martin, 2003. "Estimating the Impact of WTO and Domestic Reforms on the Indian Cotton and Textile Sectors: a General‐Equilibrium Approach," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(3), pages 343-359, August.
    20. Rodriguez-Clare, Andres, 2007. "Clusters and comparative advantage: Implications for industrial policy," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 43-57, January.

    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:ags:pugtwp:330976. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gtpurus.html .

    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.