IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-04-41.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Near-Term Greenhouse Gas Emissions Targets

Author

Listed:
  • Kopp, Raymond

    (Resources for the Future)

Abstract

At the present time no widely accepted temporal emissions path for greenhouse gases has been developed and adopted at either a country or a global level. What does exist is a set of nearterm, country-level emissions targets associated with the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol and a process for the determination of targets for subsequent commitment periods. However, the first commitment period targets specified by the protocol have been heavily criticized on the grounds that they are arbitrary and ad hoc. The purpose of this paper is to examine the conceptual foundations upon which one might base a domestic climate policy for the United States and to attempt to determine whether a near-term emissions target can indeed be derived from structured decisionmaking resting upon these conceptual foundations.

Suggested Citation

  • Kopp, Raymond, 2004. "Near-Term Greenhouse Gas Emissions Targets," RFF Working Paper Series dp-04-41, Resources for the Future.
    • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-04-41
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-04-41.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Pearce, 2003. "The Social Cost of Carbon and its Policy Implications," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 19(3), pages 362-384.
    2. Gillingham, Kenneth & Newell, Richard G. & Palmer, Karen L., 2004. "Retrospective Examination of Demand-Side Energy Efficiency Policies," Discussion Papers 10477, Resources for the Future.
    3. Richard S.J. Tol, 1999. "Kyoto, Efficiency, and Cost-Effectiveness: Applications of FUND," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 131-156.
    4. Oran R. Young, 2003. "Environment and Statecraft: The Strategy of Environmental Treaty-Making," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 3(1), pages 145-147, February.
    5. Stephen C. Peck & Thomas J. Teisberg, 1999. "CO2 Emissions Control Agreements: Incentives for Regional Participation," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 367-390.
    6. Raymond J. Kopp, 1992. "Why existence value should be used in cost-benefit analysis," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 123-130.
    7. Kopp, Raymond J. & Portney, Paul R., 1997. "Mock Referenda for Intergenerational Decision-making," Discussion Papers 10745, Resources for the Future.
    8. Nordhaus, William D & Yang, Zili, 1996. "A Regional Dynamic General-Equilibrium Model of Alternative Climate-Change Strategies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(4), pages 741-765, September.
    9. Alan S. Manne & Richard G. Richels, 1999. "The Kyoto Protocol: A Cost-Effective Strategy for Meeting Environmental Objectives?," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 1-23.
    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. Pizer, William, 2005. "Climate Policy Design Under Uncertainty," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-44, Resources for the Future.
    2. Muller-Furstenberger, Georg & Wagner, Martin, 2007. "Exploring the environmental Kuznets hypothesis: Theoretical and econometric problems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 648-660, May.
    3. Timilsina, Govinda R., 2008. "Atmospheric stabilization of CO2 emissions: Near-term reductions and absolute versus intensity-based targets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 1927-1936, June.

    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. Carolyn Fischer & Richard D. Morgenstern, 2006. "Carbon Abatement Costs: Why the Wide Range of Estimates?," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 2), pages 73-86.
    2. Nordhaus, William, 2013. "Integrated Economic and Climate Modeling," Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling, in: Peter B. Dixon & Dale Jorgenson (ed.), Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 1069-1131, Elsevier.
    3. Ciscar, Juan Carlos & Soria, Antonio, 2002. "Prospective analysis of beyond Kyoto climate policy: a sequential game framework," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(15), pages 1327-1335, December.
    4. Elizabeth Stanton, 2011. "Negishi welfare weights in integrated assessment models: the mathematics of global inequality," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 107(3), pages 417-432, August.
    5. Khanna, Neha, 2001. "Analyzing the economic cost of the Kyoto protocol," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 59-69, July.
    6. Barbara Buchner & Carlo Carraro, 2006. "‘US, China and the Economics of Climate Negotiations’," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 63-89, March.
    7. Barbara Buchner & Carlo Carraro, 2004. "Economic and environmental effectiveness of a technology-based climate protocol," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(3), pages 229-248, September.
    8. Carraro, Carlo & Bosello, Francesco & Buchner, Barbara & Raggi, Davide, 2003. "Can Equity Enhance Efficiency? Some Lessons from Climate Negotiations," CEPR Discussion Papers 3606, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. Zhang, Hong & Jin, Gui & Zhang, Zhengyu, 2021. "Coupling system of carbon emission and social economy: A review," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    10. Hans Gersbach & Noemi Hummel & Ralph Winkler, 2011. "Sustainable Climate Treaties," Diskussionsschriften dp1105, Universitaet Bern, Departement Volkswirtschaft.
    11. Richard S.J. Tol, 2021. "Estimates of the social cost of carbon have not changed over time," Working Paper Series 0821, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    12. Havranek, Tomas & Irsova, Zuzana & Janda, Karel & Zilberman, David, 2015. "Selective reporting and the social cost of carbon," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 394-406.
    13. Dritan Osmani, "undated". "A note on optimal transfer schemes, stable coalition for environmental protection and joint maximization assumption," Working Papers FNU-176, Research unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University.
    14. Ingmar Schumacher, 2018. "The Aggregation Dilemma In Climate Change Policy Evaluation," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(03), pages 1-20, August.
    15. Carraro, Carlo & Buchner, Barbara & Cersosimo, Igor, 2002. "On the Consequences of the US Withdrawal from the Kyoto/Bonn Protocol," CEPR Discussion Papers 3239, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    16. Carlo Carraro & Barbara Buchner, 2006. "Parallel Climate Blocs. Incentives to cooperation in international climate negotiations," Working Papers 2006_45, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    17. Carraro, Carlo & Buchner, Barbara, 2005. "Regional and Sub-Global Climate Blocs. A Game-Theoretic Perspective on Bottom-up Climate Regimes," CEPR Discussion Papers 5034, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. Wei, Yi-Ming & Mi, Zhi-Fu & Huang, Zhimin, 2015. "Climate policy modeling: An online SCI-E and SSCI based literature review," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 57(PA), pages 70-84.
    19. Dieter Helm, 2005. "Economic Instruments and Environmental Policy," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 36(3), pages 205-228.
    20. Richard S.J. Tol, 2005. "The Benefits Of Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction: An Application Of Fund," Working Papers FNU-64, Research unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University, revised Apr 2005.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    U.S. climate policy; greenhouse gas target; cost-effectiveness analysis; costbenefit analysis;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q2 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation
    • Q4 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy

    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:rff:dpaper:dp-04-41. 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: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.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.