HOME / SEARCH /

Search

Search results

    Olmstead, Sheila M, and Robert N Stavins. “Three Key Elements of Post-2012 International Climate Policy Architecture.” Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: Harvard Project on Climate Agreements, 2010. Publisher's VersionAbstract
    stavins_olmsteadmontrealfinal-2.pdf

    We describe three essential elements of an effective post-2012 international global climate policy architecture: a means to ensure that key industrialized and developing nations are involved in differentiated but meaningful ways; an emphasis on an extended time path of targets; and inclusion of flexible market-based policy instruments to keep costs down and facilitate international equity. This architecture is consistent with fundamental aspects of the science, economics, and politics of global climate change; addresses specific shortcomings of the Kyoto Protocol; and builds upon the foundation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

    F-27

    Olmstead, Sheila M, and Robert N Stavins. “Three Key Elements of a Post-2012 International Climate Policy Architecture.” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 6 (2012): 65 –85. Publisher's VersionAbstract
    olmstead_stavins_in_reep_symposium_published.pdf

    This article describes three essential elements of an effective post-2012 international climate policy architecture: a framework to ensure that key industrialized and developing nations are involved in differentiated but meaningful ways, an emphasis on an extended time path for emissions targets, and the inclusion of flexible market-based policy instruments to keep costs down and facilitate international equity. This overall architecture is consistent with fundamental aspects of the science, economics, and politics of global climate change; addresses specific shortcomings of the Kyoto Protocol; and builds on the foundation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

    A-68

    Aldy, Joseph E, Scott Barrett, and Robert N Stavins. “Thirteen Plus One: A Comparison of Global Climate Policy Architectures.” Climate Policy 3 (2003): 373–397.Abstract
    thirteen_plus_one_article.pdf

    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 (DCs) 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.

    A-38

Pages