The evolution of a climate regime: Kyoto to Marrakech

143 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The Economics of the Kyoto Protocol (2003, background): “…forests/other) gases With US Without US Hagem and Holtsmark (2001) N N 15 5.0 66 Kemfert (2001) Y/N N 52 8.0 84 Eyckmans et al. (2001) N N 22 10.0 55 Den Elzen and Manders (2001) Y/N Y 37 13.6 63 Böhringer (2001) Y/N N ‘Close to zero’ Babiker et al. (2002) Y/Partial Y 10 Negligible Note.”
Tax distortions and global climate policy (2003, unknown): “an allocation beyond their projected emissions) means that virtually no actual reductions in any country are required if these credits can be applied in other countries as allowed under the Protocol (Babiker, et al. [ 4 ]).”
The costs of the Kyoto protocol in the European Union (2003, unknown): “In the case of Babiker et al (2002) this is possible even with the rapid economic growth assumed here.”
Estimating the CDM market under the Marrakech Accords (2002, methodology): “For example, Babiker et al. (2002) using the MIT-EPPA model without CDM, estimate permit prices of US$ 1.40/t CO 2 and US$ 6.80/t CO2, without and with cartelisation of Annex B sellers, respectively. Den Elzen and de Moor (2001) , using the FAIR model, project prices of US$ 2.”
The MIT Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis (EPPA) Model: Version 4 (2005, background): “• Calculation of the environmental and economic implications of the Marrakech agreement (Babiker et al., 2002);”