IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/331048.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

This paper attempts to evaluate the economic impacts of the Kyoto Protocol by using AIM model. It is estimated that the GDP losses to Japan, US, EU, and Russia would be 0.42%, 0.56%, 0.44%, and 0.25%, respectively in case the Annex B countries ratify the Kyoto Protocol and reduce their emissions without emissions trading and without accounting carbon sink. On the other hand, the GDP losses to Japan and EU would grow when the United States would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and it is estimated to fall by 0.48% and 0.47% relative to the base case scenario, respectively. The GDP loss of Russia would be 0.17%. The GDP of US would increase by 0.01%. These losses would be recovered if Kyoto mechanisms were adopted. When the emissions trading would be introduced, the GDP losses to Japan, US, and EU would be 0.14%, 0.33% and 0.19%, respectively and Russia would gain GDP by 3.5%. When carbon sink is accounted, the economic impacts can be reduced further. Even when the amount of tradable carbon is restricted, the impacts will become much less. In addition to emission trading, effects of CDM, price induced technical change, and boycott movement are examined. The paper also analyzed the climatic impacts of the mitigation scenarios. Three scenarios are examined. First scenario assumes a goal of the Kyoto Protocol will be achieved in 2010. The second assumes that USA will not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. The third scenario assumes that the emission is reduced at the rate of 5% per decade after 2020. It is found that the temperature will increase to 2.15 ºC by the year 2100 even if the Annex B countries follow the Kyoto protocol and other appropriate countermeasures are taken. If we postpone the reduction policies, climate impacts will become worse. The implementation of the Kyoto Protocol is necessary to keep the temperature increase in 2100 below 2 ºC

Author

Listed:
  • Kainuma, Mikiko
  • Matsuoka, Yuzuru
  • Morita, Tsuneyuki

Abstract

This paper attempts to evaluate the economic impacts of the Kyoto Protocol by using AIM model. It is estimated that the GDP losses to Japan, US, EU, and Russia would be 0.42%, 0.56%, 0.44%, and 0.25%, respectively in case the Annex B countries ratify the Kyoto Protocol and reduce their emissions without emissions trading and without accounting carbon sink. On the other hand, the GDP losses to Japan and EU would grow when the United States would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and it is estimated to fall by 0.48% and 0.47% relative to the base case scenario, respectively. The GDP loss of Russia would be 0.17%. The GDP of US would increase by 0.01%. These losses would be recovered if Kyoto mechanisms were adopted. When the emissions trading would be introduced, the GDP losses to Japan, US, and EU would be 0.14%, 0.33% and 0.19%, respectively and Russia would gain GDP by 3.5%. When carbon sink is accounted, the economic impacts can be reduced further. Even when the amount of tradable carbon is restricted, the impacts will become much less. In addition to emission trading, effects of CDM, price induced technical change, and boycott movement are examined.

Suggested Citation

  • Kainuma, Mikiko & Matsuoka, Yuzuru & Morita, Tsuneyuki, 2002. "This paper attempts to evaluate the economic impacts of the Kyoto Protocol by using AIM model. It is estimated that the GDP losses to Japan, US, EU, and Russia would be 0.42%, 0.56%, 0.44%, and 0.25%,," Conference papers 331048, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331048
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/331048/files/959.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. de Bruyn, S. M. & van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. & Opschoor, J. B., 1998. "Economic growth and emissions: reconsidering the empirical basis of environmental Kuznets curves," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 161-175, May.
    2. Stern, David I. & Common, Michael S., 2001. "Is There an Environmental Kuznets Curve for Sulfur?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 162-178, March.
    3. Pagan,Adrian & Ullah,Aman, 1999. "Nonparametric Econometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521355643, September.
    4. Richard Schmalensee & Thomas M. Stoker & Ruth A. Judson, 1998. "World Carbon Dioxide Emissions: 1950-2050," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(1), pages 15-27, February.
    5. Cole, M.A. & Rayner, A.J. & Bates, J.M., 1997. "The environmental Kuznets curve: an empirical analysis," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(4), pages 401-416, November.
    6. Grossman, G.M & Krueger, A.B., 1991. "Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement," Papers 158, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Public and International Affairs.
    7. Selden Thomas M. & Song Daqing, 1994. "Environmental Quality and Development: Is There a Kuznets Curve for Air Pollution Emissions?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 147-162, September.
    8. Panayotou, Theodore, 1997. "Demystifying the environmental Kuznets curve: turning a black box into a policy tool," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(4), pages 465-484, November.
    9. Gene M. Grossman & Alan B. Krueger, 1995. "Economic Growth and the Environment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(2), pages 353-377.
    10. Shafik, Nemat, 1994. "Economic Development and Environmental Quality: An Econometric Analysis," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(0), pages 757-773, Supplemen.
    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. Roxana Pincheira & Felipe Zuniga, 2021. "Environmental Kuznets curve bibliographic map: a systematic literature review," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(S1), pages 1931-1956, April.
    2. Sabuj Kumar Mandal & Devleena Chakravarty, 2017. "Role of energy in estimating turning point of Environmental Kuznets Curve: an econometric analysis of the existing studies," Journal of Social and Economic Development, Springer;Institute for Social and Economic Change, vol. 19(2), pages 387-401, October.
    3. He, Jie & Richard, Patrick, 2010. "Environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 in Canada," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1083-1093, March.
    4. Stern, David I., 2014. "The Environmental Kuznets Curve: A Primer," Working Papers 249424, Australian National University, Centre for Climate Economics & Policy.
    5. Dinda, Soumyananda, 2004. "Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: A Survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 431-455, August.
    6. Jie He, 2007. "Is the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis valid for developing countries? A survey," Cahiers de recherche 07-03, Departement d'économique de l'École de gestion à l'Université de Sherbrooke.
    7. Stern, David I., 2004. "The Rise and Fall of the Environmental Kuznets Curve," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1419-1439, August.
    8. Hettige, Hemamala & Mani, Muthukumara & Wheeler, David, 2000. "Industrial pollution in economic development: the environmental Kuznets curve revisited," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 445-476, August.
    9. Jie HE, 2005. "Economic Determinants for China’s Industrial SO2 Emission: Reduced vs. Structural form and the role of international trade," Working Papers 200505, CERDI.
    10. Stern, David I. & Common, Michael S., 2001. "Is There an Environmental Kuznets Curve for Sulfur?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 162-178, March.
    11. Le Hoang Phong & Dang Thi Bach Van & Ho Hoang Gia Bao, 2018. "The Role of Globalization on CO2 Emission in Vietnam Incorporating Industrialization, Urbanization, GDP per Capita and Energy Use," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 8(6), pages 275-283.
    12. Xiaosheng Li & Xia Yan & Qingxian An & Ke Chen & Zhen Shen, 2016. "The coordination between China’s economic growth and environmental emission from the Environmental Kuznets Curve viewpoint," 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. 83(1), pages 233-252, August.
    13. Danesh Miah, Md. & Farhad Hossain Masum, Md. & Koike, Masao, 2010. "Global observation of EKC hypothesis for CO2, SOx and NOx emission: A policy understanding for climate change mitigation in Bangladesh," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4643-4651, August.
    14. Bennedsen, Mikkel & Hillebrand, Eric & Jensen, Sebastian, 2023. "A neural network approach to the environmental Kuznets curve," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    15. Dinda, Soumyananda & Coondoo, Dipankor & Pal, Manoranjan, 2000. "Air quality and economic growth: an empirical study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 409-423, September.
    16. Al Mamun, Md. & Sohag, Kazi & Hannan Mia, Md. Abdul & Salah Uddin, Gazi & Ozturk, Ilhan, 2014. "Regional differences in the dynamic linkage between CO2 emissions, sectoral output and economic growth," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-11.
    17. Tiba, Sofien & Omri, Anis, 2017. "Literature survey on the relationships between energy, environment and economic growth," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 1129-1146.
    18. Ezcurra, Roberto, 2007. "Is there cross-country convergence in carbon dioxide emissions?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 1363-1372, February.
    19. Mikkel Bennedsen & Eric Hillebrand & Sebastian Jensen, 2022. "A Neural Network Approach to the Environmental Kuznets Curve," CREATES Research Papers 2022-09, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    20. Roger Perman & David I. Stern, 2003. "Evidence from panel unit root and cointegration tests that the Environmental Kuznets Curve does not exist," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(3), pages 325-347, September.

    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:331048. 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.