Economic tools to promote transparency and comparability in the Paris Agreement
By Joseph E. Aldy, William A. Pizer, Massimo Tavoni, Lara Aleluia Reis, Keigo Akimoto, G. Blanford, Carlo Carraro, Leon Clarke, J. Edmonds, G. Iyer and 4 more. 2016
130 citations recorded by the source corpus.
The Paris Agreement culminates a six-year transition toward an international climate policy architecture based on parties submitting national pledges every five years. An important policy task will be to assess and compare these contributions. We use four integrated assessment models to produce metrics of Paris Agreement pledges, and show differentiated effort across countries: wealthier countries pledge to undertake greater emission reductions with higher costs. The pledges fall in the lower end of the distributions of the social cost of carbon (SCC) and the cost-minimizing path to limiting warming to 2⠰C, suggesting insufficient global ambition in light of leaders’ climate goals. Countries’ marginal abatement costs vary by two orders of magnitude, illustrating that large efficiency gains are available through joint mitigation efforts and/or carbon price coordination. Marginal costs rise almost proportionally with income, but full policy costs reveal more complex regional patterns due to terms of trade effects.
Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1fcd2346d6751cf36022643946cfbe89109ba005
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Economics and Econometrics
In Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment
Citations in the corpus
- Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies Remain Large: An Update Based on Country-Level Estimates (2019, background): “17 See Parry and others (2018) and, for further discussion, Aldy and others (2016).”
- Carbon Pricing: Effectiveness and Equity (2018, methodology): “For these reasons, some economists have chosen to frame their climate policy advice in terms of cost-effectiveness of the means of reducing emissions, rather than optimal choice of policy goals (see, for example, Van den Bergh, 2010; Söderholm, 2012; Aldy et al., 2016; Stiglitz and Stern, 2017; Bak ”