We investigate how the U.S. withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol and the provisions of the Bonn climate policy conference on sink credits and emissions trading will change the economic and environmental impacts of the Protocol in its originalform. Based on simulations with a large-scale computable general equilibrium model, we find that the U.S. withdrawal and amendments of Bonn reduce the Kyoto Protocol’s impact to business-as-usual without binding emission constraints. U.S. compliance under the new Bonn provisions, on the other hand, would accommodate a substantial cut in global emissions at relatively small compliance costs for OECD countries.
BabikerM.ReillyJ.M.JacobyH.D. (2000). “The Kyoto Protocol and Developing Countries.” Energy Policy28: 525-536.
2.
BaronR.BosiM.LanzaA.PershingJ. (1999). “A Preliminary Analysis of the EU Proposals on the Kyoto Mechanisms,” Energy and Environment Division, International Energy Agency, http://www.iea.org/new/releases/1999/eurpro/eurlong.html
3.
BernsteinP.MontgomeryD.RutherfordT. F.YangG. (1999). “Effects of Restrictions on International Permit Trading: The MS-MRT Model,” The Energy Journal Special Issue on The Costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation: 221-257.
4.
BöhringerC. (2000). “Cooling Down Hot Air - A Global CGE Analysis of Post-Kyoto Carbon Abatement Strategies,” Energy Policy28: 779-789.
5.
BöhringerC.RutherfordT. F. (2002). “Carbon Abatement and International Spillovers,” Environmental and Resource Economics (forthcoming).
6.
BollenJ.GielenA.TimmerH. (1999). “Clubs, Ceilings and CDM – Macroeconomics of Compliance with the Kyoto Protocol,” The Energy Journal – Special Issue on The Costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation: 177-206.
7.
CriquiP.MimaS.ViguierL. (1999). “Marginal abatement costs of CO2 emission reductions, geographical flexibility and concrete ceilings: an assessment using the POLES model,” Energy Policy27: 585-602.
8.
DOE (1998) U.S. Department of Energy, Annual Energy Outlook (AEO 1998), Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov
9.
EllermanA.D.WingI.S.(2000). “Supplementarity: An Invitation for Monopsony,” The Energy Journal21(4): 29-59.
10.
HagemC.HoltsmarkB. (2001). “From small to insignificant: Climate impact of the Kyoto Protocol with and without US,” CICERO Policy Note 2001:1 htttp://www.cicero.uio.no
11.
NemryF. (2001). LULUCF39 v4 – Quantitative implications of the decision -/CP.7 on LULUCF, Personal Communication.
12.
PaltsevS.V. (2000). “The Kyoto Protocol: Hot Air for Russia?,” University of Colorado, Working Paper 00-9, http://debreu.colorado.edu/projects/sergey_hotair.pdf
13.
PaltsevS.V.(2001). “The Kyoto Protocol: Regional and Sectoral Contributions to the Carbon Leakage,” The Energy Journal22 (4): 53-79.
14.
RoseA.StevensB. (2001). “An Economic Analysis of Flexible Permit Trading in the Kyoto Protocol,” International Environmental Agreements1: 219-42.
15.
RutherfordT.F.PaltsevS.V. (2000). “GTAP-Energy in GAMS,” University of Colorado, Working Paper 00-2, http://debreu.colorado.edu/download/gtap-eg.pdf
16.
UNFCCC (1997). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, FCCC/CP/L.7/Add.l, Kyoto.
17.
UNFCCC (2001). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Review of the implementation of commitments and of other provisions of the Convention, FCCC/CP/2001/L.7, VI, 5.
18.
WeyantJ.P.(ed)(1999). The Costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation. Special Issue of The Energy Journal. 448 pp.
