A better way to slow global climate change

dc.contributor.authorWilcoxen, Peter J
dc.contributor.authorMcKibbin, Warwick
dc.date.accessioned2003-11-04en_US
dc.date.accessioned2004-09-28T03:56:39Zen_US
dc.date.accessioned2011-01-05T08:48:36Z
dc.date.available2004-09-28T03:56:39Zen_US
dc.date.available2011-01-05T08:48:36Z
dc.date.created1997en_US
dc.date.issued1997en_US
dc.description.abstractThe next major round of international negotiations on controlling global climate change is to be held later this year in Kyoto. The focus of talks to date has been on policies to reduce worldwide carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels and hold them there. A proposal by the United States would achieve this by creating a system of internationally tradable emissions permits. Although the U.S. proposal has attractive features and has been endorsed by a number of prominent economists, it has several serious flaws that would prevent the treaty from being ratified and implemented. First, it focuses exclusively on stabilizing emissions even though a much stronger case can be made for reducing the growth of emissions rather than allowing no growth at all. A second problem is that it would also be very difficult and expensive to monitor and enforce. Third, it would generate such huge transfers of wealth between countries that those generating most of the world’s emissions would be unlikely to ratify the treaty. More important, these wealth transfers could cause dramatic changes in exchange rates, trade balances, and international capital flows and would put enormous stress on the world trading system. A better alternative would be to set up a system of national permits and emissions fees. Each country would be allowed to distribute tradable emissions permits equal to its 1990 emissions. Each government would also agree to sell additional permits at a fee specified in the treaty, say U.S.$10 a ton of carbon emitted. The effect of the policy would be to encourage firms to reduce emissions whenever they could do so at a cost of $10 a ton or less. Since this alternative does not focus on stabilization and instead aims at the more modest goal of reducing emissions where it can be done at low cost, and it includes an allowance for 1990 emissions, it is far more likely to be ratified and implemented. It would give firms an incentive to reduce emissions without causing huge international transfers of wealth and would avoid causing havoc in the system of world trade. Because the fee would be uniform throughout the world, the emissions reductions would be accomplished at minimum cost. Finally, the revenue raised by emissions fees would provide an incentive for individual governments to enforce the policy.en_US
dc.format.extent32641 bytesen_US
dc.format.extent349 bytesen_US
dc.format.mimetypetext/htmlen_US
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/octet-streamen_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1885/41882en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/41882
dc.language.isoen_AUen_US
dc.subjectglobal climate changeen_US
dc.subjectKyotoen_US
dc.subjectpoliciesen_US
dc.subjectcarbon dioxide emissionsen_US
dc.subjectinternationally tradable emissions permitsen_US
dc.subjecttreatyen_US
dc.subjectnational permitsen_US
dc.subjectemissions feesen_US
dc.subjectinternational tradeen_US
dc.titleA better way to slow global climate changeen_US
dc.typeWorking/Technical Paperen_US
local.citationEEN9702 Papersen_US
local.contributor.affiliationANUen_US
local.contributor.affiliationEconomics and Environment Networken_US
local.description.refereednoen_US
local.identifier.citationmonthjunen_US
local.identifier.citationyear1997en_US
local.identifier.eprintid2195en_US
local.rights.ispublishedyesen_US

Downloads

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
pb17.htm
Size:
31.88 KB
Format:
Hypertext Markup Language