International Climate Mitigation Regime Beyond 2012: How Do Quota Allocation Rules Perform Under Uncertainty? Renaud CRASSOUS, CIRED In collaboration with Franck LECOCQ, World Bank With financial support from the World Bank Research Committee and from the ADEME Agence de l'environnement de la maîtrise de l'énergie The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the view of the World Bank, its Executive Directors, of the countries they represent. They do not necessarily represent the view of the ADEME.
Context Stabilizing GHG concentrations requires ultimately that the U.S. and developing countries control their emissions. Two major obstacles: One generic: distributional issues associated with burden sharing One specific to quantity-based approach under uncertainty: Parties negotiate on quantities but care about costs, and uncertainties make costs of reaching a given target uncertain.
Questions Since it is likely that the post-kyoto regime be quantity-based, isn t there a risk that uncertainty on baseline hamper agreement? Among the various quota allocation rules (QARs) that have been proposed in the literature, are some more robust to uncertainties on baseline and abatement costs than others?
Methodology Partial equilibrium model of the allowance market with: 12 regions, each with own marginal abatement cost curve (EPPA derived) 9 five-year commitment periods from 2008 to 2052 Solved sequentially under various QARs, and various baseline scenarios, covering a wide range of plausible futures.
A focus on Baseline Uncertainty 21 baseline scenarios for CO2 emissions, but also population and GDP (necessary for QAR computation) Representative of range of uncertainty in SRES report. World Population World GDP World CO2 Emissions 13.0 12.0 11.0 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 20.0 18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Selected Quota Allocation Rules Grandfathering family: Flatrate Multicriteria (Norwegian proposal) GDP-indexed rate (H. Jacoby s proposal, MIT) Per Capita entitlements: Immediate Per Capita (Agarwal and Narain, 1991) Contraction and Convergence (GCI) Responsibility approach Adapted Brazilian proposal: Increasing Participation (RIVM)
Imperfect Control of Quantities 600 550 IWA1 IWA2 IWA3 IWB IMA1b 500 450 400 IMA1f IMA1t IMA2 IMB1 IMB2 EPA1 EPA2 350 EPA3 EPA4 300 EPA5 EPA6 250 BAU Per Capita FlatRate MultiCriteria Jacoby Incr. Particip. C & C EPA7 ISa ISb 200 ISc ISd ISe
Uncertainty echo on prices Carbon Price - Contraction and Convergence 400 350 $ per ton of C 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Dynamic uncertainties Carbon Price - Jacoby's rule 500 450 400 $ per ton of C 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 EPA3 IMA1t
A Static Threshold is not innocuous Carbon Price - Jacoby's rule $ per ton of C 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 EPA3 IMA1t
Uncertainties Magnified by a Threshold? 45 40 Increasing Participation standard deviation of prices (2015, $ per ton of C) 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 Brazilian C&C Multicriteria, Flatrate, Jacoby without thresholds Flatrate, Multicriteria, Jacoby with thresholds Per Capita 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 standard deviation of quantities (GtC de C)
Early Entry of DCs has a predominant impact on world total costs Early entry of Developing Countries supply early cheap abatement opportunities and lower total world costs for all scenarios. When a less stringent global constraint on quantities is due to later entry of DCs, it does not appear to be sufficient to lower prices in compensation to the absence of cheap abatement opportunities
Is a Threshold a 'misleading' good idea? Calling for threshold for entry of developing countries in the regime is based on a combination of economic and pragmatic arguments. -Ability to pay / Basic needs -Willingness to pay Clean atmosphere as a superior good However: -it magnifies uncertainties on prices -it is likely to increase total world costs of mitigation But alternative types of threshold still have to be tested
Total Costs Remain Highly Uncertain under All Rules Total discounted costs 2015-2030 Western Europe Total discounted costs 2015-2030 USA % of discounted GD 0.20% 0.00% -0.20% -0.40% -0.60% -0.80% -1.00% -1.20% -1.40% -1.60% -1.80% -2.00% PC CC MC JY IP FL rules Total discounted costs 2015-2030 Centrally Planned Asia Min Max % of discounted G 1.00% 0.50% 0.00% -0.50% -1.00% -1.50% -2.00% -2.50% -3.00% PC CC MC JY IP FL rules Total discounted costs 2015-2030 Latin America Min Max % of discounted GD 2.00% 1.50% 1.00% 0.50% 0.00% -0.50% -1.00% PC CC MC JY IP FL Min Max % of discounted GDP 4.00% 3.00% 2.00% 1.00% 0.00% -1.00% -2.00% -3.00% -4.00% PC CC MC JY IP FL Min Max rules rules
Least-Costs Choices across Rules are scenariodependent for some Regions (2015-2030) USA CANZ JPN WEU EEU FSU CPA SAS ROA MENA SAFR LAM IWA1 FL IP CC MC JY OUT JY CC CC CC CC CC IWA2 FL IP CC MC JY OUT JY CC CC CC CC CC IWA3 FL IP MC MC JY OUT JY CC JY CC CC CC IWB FL IP MC MC JY OUT CC CC CC CC CC CC IMA1b IP IP IP CC JY JY JY CC CC CC CC CC IMA1f IP IP CC CC CC JY JY CC CC CC CC CC IMA1t IP IP CC CC CC JY JY CC CC CC CC CC IMA2 FL IP CC CC JY OUT CC CC CC CC CC CC IMB1 FL IP CC CC CC JY JY CC JY CC CC JY IMB2 FL IP IP MC JY JY JY CC CC CC CC CC EPA1 IP IP CC CC CC JY JY CC CC CC CC JY EPA2 IP IP CC IP CC JY JY CC CC CC CC MC EPA3 FL IP CC CC CC JY JY CC CC CC CC CC EPA4 FL IP CC CC JY OUT CC CC CC CC CC JY EPA5 FL IP CC CC CC OUT CC CC CC CC CC IP EPA6 FL IP CC CC CC JY JY CC CC CC CC JY EPA7 IP IP CC CC CC OUT JY CC CC CC CC JY ISa FL IP CC CC JY OUT OUT CC CC CC CC IP ISb FL IP CC MC JY OUT OUT CC CC CC CC IP ISc IP IP FL FL FL OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT IP ISd JY IP CC CC CC OUT JY CC CC CC CC JY ISe FL IP CC CC JY JY JY CC CC CC CC CC ISf FL IP CC CC JY OUT OUT CC CC CC CC CC
Two decision criteria lead to quite robust choices Discounted costs up to 2030 Mean expected Minimax USA Flat Rate Flat Rate CANZ Incr. Part. Incr. Part. JPN C&C C&C WEU C&C C&C EEU Jacoby C&C FSU Jacoby OUT CPA Per Capita Per Capita SAS Per Capita Per Capita ROA Per Capita Per Capita MENA C&C C&C SAFR Per Capita Per Capita LAM Per Capita Per Capita Discounted costs up to 2030 (without Per Capita) Mean expected Minimax USA Flat Rate Flat Rate CANZ Incr. Part Incr. Part JPN C&C C&C WEU C&C C&C EEU Jacoby C&C FSU Jacoby Flat Rate / Jacoby CPA Jacoby Jacoby SAS C&C C&C ROA C&C C&C MENA C&C C&C SAFR C&C OUT LAM C&C C&C Strong oppositions re-appear as expected, even with uncertainties. Tables also suggest some room for negotiation: 'Earlier entry of developing countries in exchange for higher transfers from the North'
Choices evolve with the planning horizon Mean Expected 2015 2015-2030 2015-2050 USA Flat Rate Flat Rate Flat Rate CANZ Incr. Part. Incr. Part. Incr. Part. JPN C&C C&C C&C WEU C&C C&C MultiCrit EEU Jacoby Jacoby Jacoby FSU OUT Jacoby Jacoby CPA C&C Jacoby Jacoby SAS C&C C&C C&C ROA C&C C&C C&C MENA C&C C&C C&C SAFR C&C C&C C&C LAM Jacoby C&C C&C Minimum 2015 2015-2030 2015-2050 USA Flat Rate Flat Rate Flat Rate CANZ Incr. Part. Incr. Part. Incr. Part. JPN C&C C&C C&C WEU C&C C&C MultiCrit EEU C&C C&C Jacoby FSU OUT Flat Rate Jacoby CPA OUT Jacoby Jacoby SAS OUT C&C C&C ROA OUT C&C C&C MENA C&C C&C C&C SAFR OUT OUT OUT LAM C&C C&C C&C
Conclusion Highlight 1: Prices and transfers remain highly uncertain across scenarios Highlight 2: Rules of entry especially thresholds have a significant impact on the behaviour of QARs under uncertainty : prices and costs. What is the 'cost' of such specifications? Highlight 3: Choices among selected rules: are quite robust to the attitude toward risk (decision criteria), BUT sometimes evolves when the time horizon changes.
Further issues Actually uncertainties don't change so much usual strong oppositions on burden sharing. But uncertainties reveal two main issues: Implementation: Stakeholders really need stable signals, or a safeguard (price cap?) Enlargement: Risk-adverse DCs may be deterred from entering the market early by those uncertainties (an other kind of guarantee of positive net benefit for DCs?)
Further developments Track 1 : Refining the analysis with complementary mechanisms (price-cap, banking). Track 2 : Considering regional damages to discuss international distribution issues. Track 3 : Assessing Impact of Internal Policies on real costs and net benefits.
For more information Lecocq, F., Crassous, R., International Climate Regime beyond 2012: Are Quota Allocation Rules robust to uncertainty?, WorldBank Policy Research Paper #3000, March 2003. Available on: http://econ.worldbank.org/files/24950_wps3000.pdf