IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cem/doctra/599.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

GDP-related emission targets weaknesses: the case of Argentina

Author

Listed:
  • Mariana Conte Grand

Abstract

GDP linked targets have the potential to favor green growth and avoid “hot air” in uncertain backgrounds, like those of many developing economies. Even if they are not a guarantee of emissions reduction as required by the 2 degree Celsius Copenhagen goal because emissions´ intensity can decrease even when emissions do not. A few countries have submitted at some point of international negotiations a target based on this type of metric. Argentina is one of them, together with Chile, China, India, Singapore, Tunisia, Uruguay and Turkmenistan. As is the case of all target forms, it requires good monitoring and forecast of emissions. But, as the literature has shown, one of the GDP-related target weaknesses is that it relies on a second indicator: the GDP. This article shows concretely how GDP biases influence intensity targets monitoring, using as a base the case of Argentina.

Suggested Citation

  • Mariana Conte Grand, 2016. "GDP-related emission targets weaknesses: the case of Argentina," CEMA Working Papers: Serie Documentos de Trabajo. 599, Universidad del CEMA.
    • Handle: RePEc:cem:doctra:599
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ucema.edu.ar/publicaciones/download/documentos/599.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marschinski, Robert & Edenhofer, Ottmar, 2010. "Revisiting the case for intensity targets: Better incentives and less uncertainty for developing countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 5048-5058, September.
    2. 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.
    3. D. Dudek & A. Golub, 2003. ""Intensity" targets: pathway or roadblock to preventing climate change while enhancing economic growth?," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(sup2), pages 21-28, December.
    4. William A. Pizer, 2005. "The case for intensity targets," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(4), pages 455-462, July.
    5. ZhongXiang Zhang, 2011. "Assessing China’s carbon intensity pledge for 2020: stringency and credibility issues and their implications," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 13(3), pages 219-235, September.
    6. Barros, Vincente & Grand, Mariana Conte, 2002. "Implications of a dynamic target of greenhouse gases emission reduction: the case of Argentina," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(3), pages 547-569, July.
    7. Randall Lutter, 2000. "Developing Countries' Greenhouse Emmissions: Uncertainty and Implications for Participation in the Kyoto Protocol," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4), pages 93-120.
    8. Brian Sturgess, 2010. "Greek Economic Statistics: A Decade of Deceit," World Economics, World Economics, 1 Ivory Square, Plantation Wharf, London, United Kingdom, SW11 3UE, vol. 11(2), pages 67-100, April.
    9. Andreas (Andy) Jobst & Harry X. Wu, 2008. "Measuring China’s Economic Performance," World Economics, World Economics, 1 Ivory Square, Plantation Wharf, London, United Kingdom, SW11 3UE, vol. 9(2), pages 13-44, April.
    10. Roger Guesnerie & Henry Tulkens, 2009. "The Design of Climate Policy," Post-Print halshs-00754871, HAL.
    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. Branger, Frédéric & Quirion, Philippe, 2014. "Price versus Quantities versus Indexed Quantities," Climate Change and Sustainable Development 187277, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    2. 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.
    3. Hossa Almutairi & Samir Elhedhli, 2014. "Carbon tax based on the emission factor: a bilevel programming approach," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 58(4), pages 795-815, April.
    4. Fischer, Carolyn & Springborn, Michael, 2011. "Emissions targets and the real business cycle: Intensity targets versus caps or taxes," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 352-366.
    5. 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.
    6. Mariana Conte Grand, 2016. "Different Types of Nationally Determined Contributions to Address Climate Change," CEMA Working Papers: Serie Documentos de Trabajo. 595, Universidad del CEMA.
    7. Marschinski, Robert & Edenhofer, Ottmar, 2010. "Revisiting the case for intensity targets: Better incentives and less uncertainty for developing countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 5048-5058, September.
    8. Edvardsson Björnberg, Karin, 2013. "Rational climate mitigation goals," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 285-292.
    9. Gilbert E. Metcalf & David Weisbach, 2012. "Linking Policies When Tastes Differ: Global Climate Policy in a Heterogeneous World," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 6(1), pages 110-129.
    10. Marschinski, Robert & Lecocq, Franck, 2006. "Do intensity targets control uncertainty better than quotas ? Conditions, calibrations, and caveats," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4033, The World Bank.
    11. Annicchiarico, Barbara & Di Dio, Fabio, 2015. "Environmental policy and macroeconomic dynamics in a new Keynesian model," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 1-21.
    12. Wang, Banban & Pizer, William A. & Munnings, Clayton, 2022. "Price limits in a tradable performance standard," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    13. Olli-Pekka Kuuselaa & Gregory S. Amacher & Kwok Ping Tsang, 2013. "Intensity-Based Permit Quotas and the Business Cycle: Does Flexibility Pay Off?," Research Department Publications IDB-WP-450, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.
    14. 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.
    15. Wang, Mingxi & Wang, Mingrong & Wang, Shouyang, 2012. "Optimal investment and uncertainty on China's carbon emission abatement," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 871-877.
    16. Vennemo, Haakon & Aunan, Kristin & Jianwu, He & Tao, Hu & Shantong, Li, 2009. "Benefits and costs to China of three different climate treaties," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 139-160, August.
    17. Yiyong Cai & Yingying Lu & David Newth & Alison Stegman, 2013. "Modelling Complex Emissions Intensity Targets with a Simple Simulation Algorithm," CAMA Working Papers 2013-33, Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    18. Tao Pang & Maosheng Duan, 2016. "Cap setting and allowance allocation in China's emissions trading pilot programmes: special issues and innovative solutions," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(7), pages 815-835, October.
    19. Bang, Guri & Froyn, Camilla Bretteville & Hovi, Jon & Menz, Fredric C., 2007. "The United States and international climate cooperation: International "pull" versus domestic "push"," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 1282-1291, February.
    20. Newell, Richard G. & Pizer, William A., 2008. "Indexed regulation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 221-233, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    climate change; intensity targets; target metrics; developing countries; Latin America; Argentina;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cem:doctra:599. 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: Valeria Dowding (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cemaaar.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.