Thirteen Plus One: A Comparison of Global Climate Policy Architectures
Joseph E. Aldy
Harvard Kennedy School; National Bureau of Economic Research; Resources for the Future
Johns Hopkins University - Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS)
Robert N. Stavins
Harvard University - Harvard Kennedy School (HKS); Resources for the Future; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)
KSG Working Paper Series No. RWP03-012; FEEM Working Paper No. 64.2003
We critically review the Kyoto Protocol and thirteen alternative policy architectures for addressing the threat of global climate change. We employ six criteria to evaluate the policy proposals: environmental outcome, dynamic efficiency, cost effectiveness, equity, flexibility in the presence of new information, and incentives for participation and compliance. The Kyoto Protocol does not fare well on a number of criteria, but none of the alternative proposals fare well along all six dimensions. We identify several major themes among the alternative proposals: Kyoto is "too little, too fast"; developing countries should play a more substantial role and receive incentives to participate; implementation should focus on market-based approaches, especially those with price mechanisms; and participation and compliance incentives are inadequately addressed by most proposals. Our investigation reveals tensions among several of the evaluative criteria, such as between environmental outcome and efficiency, and between
cost-effectiveness and incentives for participation and compliance.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 39
Keywords: Policy architecture, Kyoto Protocol, Efficiency, Cost effectiveness, Equity, Participation, Compliance
JEL Classification: Q2, Q3, Q4working papers series
Date posted: April 27, 2003
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.344 seconds