US rejection of the Kyoto Protocol: the impact on compliance costs and CO2 emissions

By A. Manne, Richard G. Richels. 2004

123 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Despite the US rejection of the Kyoto Protocol, the meeting of the parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in July 2001 has increased the likelihood that the Protocol will be ratified. This raises a number of issues concerning mitigation costs, particularly for the buyers and sellers of emission permits. In this paper, we examine how the US decision is likely to affect compliance costs for other Annex B countries during the first commitment period. We also explore the implications for US emissions. Key findings include: 1. Participating OECD countries may experience a decline in mitigation costs, but because of the banking provision contained in the Protocol, the decline may not be as great as some would suggest. 2. If the majority of "hot air" is concentrated in a small number of countries in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, these countries may be able to organize a sellers' cartel and extract sizable economic rents; and 3. Even in the absence of mandatory emission reduction requirements, US emissions in 2010 may be lower than their business-as-usual baseline because of expectations regarding future regulatory requirements.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change, Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9600c04f84748630761361b75fc897b7528c045e

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 Global and Planetary Change

In Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment

Citations in the corpus

An Expanded Three-Part Architecture for Post-2012 International Climate Policy (2009, background): “Some have pointed out that the possibility of collusion in a permit market among such a small number of potential sellers becomes quite likely (Manne and Richels 2004; Springer and Varilek 2004).”
Carbon Abatement Costs: Why the Wide Range of Estimates? (2006, background): “Manne and Richels (2001) and others have demonstrated, for example, that in an international system in which a large emitter like the United States does not abate, marginal abatement costs in other Annex I nations may be significantly reduced.”
The Economic Effects of Border Measures in Subglobal Climate Agreements (2005, result): “The results from recent studies (Babiker et al., 1997 and 2002, Manne and Richels, 2001) have indicated that the agreement is effectively costless if sinks, hot air and trading are allowed in the implementation.”
Rational design in motion: Uncertainty and flexibility in the global climate regime (2010, background): “However, with US withdrawal much of the anticipated demand for carbon disappeared and the price sank accordingly; suddenly Russia faced much higher compliance costs (Manne and Richels, 2003).”
Compliance of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol in the first commitment period (2016, unknown): “…two were already suggested by ex-ante studies that analyzed the potential impact of the Kyoto Protocol (Nordhaus and Boyer 1999; Böhringer 2000; Manne and Richels 2004), while the latter two naturally emerged in more recent research (Schiermeier 2012; Peters et al. 2012; Gloaguen and Alberola…”
Targets for global climate policy: an overview (2013, background): “…2006a, 2006b, 2008; Manne and Richels, 2001; Reilly et al., 2006); the carbon prices rise faster or more slowly than the appropriate discount rate (Manne and Richels, 1998, 2004; Wigley et al., 1996); climate policy is used to further other, non-climate policy goals (Burtraw et al., 2003); and…”