IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/halshs-00068636.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Multi- stage : a rule-based evolution of future commitments under the climate change convention

Author

Listed:
  • Michel G. J. den Elzen

    (RIVM - National Institute for Public Health and the Environment [Bilthoven])

  • Marcel Berk

    (RIVM - National Institute for Public Health and the Environment [Bilthoven])

  • Paul Lucas

    (RIVM - National Institute for Public Health and the Environment [Bilthoven])

  • Patrick Criqui

    (LEPII - Laboratoire d'Economie de la Production et de l'Intégration Internationale - UPMF - Université Pierre Mendès France - Grenoble 2 - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Alban Kitous

    (Enerdata)

Abstract

This article presents the regional emission targets corresponding to different climate regimes for differentiating commitments beyond 2012 on the basis of the Multi-Stage approach. This approach assumes a gradual increase in the number of Parties involved and their level of commitment according to participation and differentiation rules. The analysis focuses on two global greenhouse gas emission profiles resulting in CO2-equivalent concentrations stabilising at 550 and 650 ppmv in 2100 and 2150, respectively. Three Multi-Stage cases have been developed in order to assess different types of thresholds. These share three consecutivestages representing different commitments: stage 1 – no quantitative commitments; stage 2 – emission–limitation targets and stage 3 – emission reduction targets. The analysis shows that by 2025 all three cases result in emission reduction objectives for all Annex I regions of at least 30–55% below their 1990 levels for 550 ppmv, whereas for 650 ppmv target they range from 0 to 20%. Furthermore, early participation is required of the major non-Annex I regions through emission limitation targets i.e. before 2025 and 2050 for the 550 and 650 ppmvtargets, respectively. The first participation threshold for adopting emission–limitation targets on the basis of a capability–responsibility index (as introduced here) can provide for a balanced and timely participation of non-Annex I regions. Major strengths and weaknesses of the climate regimes are discussed and important obstacles and pre-conditions for their feasibilityand acceptability are highlighted.

Suggested Citation

  • Michel G. J. den Elzen & Marcel Berk & Paul Lucas & Patrick Criqui & Alban Kitous, 2006. "Multi- stage : a rule-based evolution of future commitments under the climate change convention," Post-Print halshs-00068636, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-00068636
    DOI: 10.1007/s10784-004-5645-3
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00068636
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Emanuele Massetti, 2011. "Carbon tax scenarios for China and India: exploring politically feasible mitigation goals," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 209-227, September.
    2. Wang, Ke & Zhang, Xian & Wei, Yi-Ming & Yu, Shiwei, 2013. "Regional allocation of CO2 emissions allowance over provinces in China by 2020," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 214-229.
    3. Paul Veenendaal & Ton Manders, 2008. "Border tax adjustment and the EU-ETS, a quantitative assessment," CPB Document 171, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    4. Zhou, P. & Wang, M., 2016. "Carbon dioxide emissions allocation: A review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 47-59.
    5. Ekholm, Tommi & Soimakallio, Sampo & Moltmann, Sara & Höhne, Niklas & Syri, Sanna & Savolainen, Ilkka, 2010. "Effort sharing in ambitious, global climate change mitigation scenarios," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 1797-1810, April.
    6. Yu, Shiwei & Wei, Yi-Ming & Wang, Ke, 2014. "Provincial allocation of carbon emission reduction targets in China: An approach based on improved fuzzy cluster and Shapley value decomposition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 630-644.
    7. Jing CAO, 2010. "Reconciling Economic Growth and Carbon Mitigation: Challenges and Policy Options in China," Asian Economic Policy Review, Japan Center for Economic Research, vol. 5(1), pages 110-129, June.
    8. van den Broek, Machteld & Veenendaal, Paul & Koutstaal, Paul & Turkenburg, Wim & Faaij, André, 2011. "Impact of international climate policies on CO2 capture and storage deployment: Illustrated in the Dutch energy system," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 2000-2019, April.
    9. Malte Meinshausen, 2007. "Stylized Emission Path," Human Development Occasional Papers (1992-2007) HDOCPA-2007-51, Human Development Report Office (HDRO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
    10. van Vuuren, Detlef P. & den Elzen, Michel G.J. & van Vliet, Jasper & Kram, Tom & Lucas, Paul & Isaac, Morna, 2009. "Comparison of different climate regimes: the impact of broadening participation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5351-5362, December.
    11. Aldy, Joseph E. & Pizer, William A. & Akimoto, Keigo, 2015. "A natural outcome of the emerging pledge and review approach to international climate change policy is the interest in comparing mitigation efforts among countries. Domestic publics and stakeholders w," RFF Working Paper Series dp-15-32, Resources for the Future.
    12. Lijie Gao & Xiaoqi Shang & Fengmei Yang & Longyu Shi, 2021. "A Dynamic Benchmark System for Per Capita Carbon Emissions in Low-Carbon Counties of China," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-16, January.
    13. 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.
    14. Catton, Will, 2009. "Dynamic carbon caps. Splitting the bill: A fairer solution post-Kyoto?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5636-5649, December.
    15. Xunzhang Pan & Fei Teng, 2017. "Assessment of China’s Mitigation Targets in an Effort-Sharing Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-16, June.
    16. Lining Wang & Wenying Chen & XunZhang Pan & Nan Li & Huan Wang & Danyang Li & Han Chen, 2018. "Scale and benefit of global carbon markets under the 2 °C goal: integrated modeling and an effort-sharing platform," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 23(8), pages 1207-1223, December.
    17. 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.
    18. Qianting Zhu & Wenwu Tang, 2017. "Regional-Level Carbon Allocation in China Based on Sectoral Emission Patterns under the Peak Commitment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-18, April.
    19. 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.

    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:hal:journl:halshs-00068636. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.