Climate Coalitions and Punishments
- 1 Department of Economics, Bishop’s University, Sherbrooke, Canada
Abstract
Studies that demonstrate that climate change is human induced are becoming more and more prevalent. Even though most world leaders are aware of this urgency and know that we must work at mitigating it quickly, little has been accomplished in terms of widespread participation in an International Environmental Agreement (IEA). The purpose of this paper is to create a link between studies on the use of border tax adjustments (BTAs) and coalition formation. The main contribution is that the punishment will be based on relative emissions between signatories and defectors . It is a structure that is more likely be accepted by the World Trade Organization (WTO) since it may be seen as fair due to the fact that if signatories and defectors emit the same amount of pollution then there will be no punishment. The main results indicate that this form of punishment may lead to small, partial, or full coopera tion, depending on the parameter values. Additionally, at any equilibrium level, the signatories have a punishment structure that induces defectors to reduce their emissions by the same amount. In the end, this punishment may be seen as a credible threat because at equilibrium no punishment is imposed, yet if we remove the possibility of punishment it breaks down to a situation wherein no large coalitions are feasible.
- Carraro, C. and Siniscalco, D. (1993) Strategies for the Protection of the Environment. Journal of Public Economics, 52, 309-328. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2727(93)90037-T
- Hoel, M. (1996) Should a Carbon Tax Be Differentiated across Sectors? Journal of Public Economics, 59, 17-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2727(94)01490-6
- Barrett, S. (2005) Environment and Statecraft: The Strategy of Environmental Treaty-Making. Oxford University Press, USA. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199286094.001.0001
- Kemfert, C. (2004) Climate Coalitions and International Trade: Assessment of Cooperation Incentives by Issue Linkage. Energy Policy, 32, 455-465. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(03)00148-4
- Monjon, S. and Quirion, P. (2010) How to Design a Border Adjustment for the European Union Emissions Trading System? Energy Policy, 38, 5199-5207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.05.005
- Ismer, R. and Neuhoff, K. (2007) Border Tax Adjustment: A Feasible Way to Support Stringent Emission Trading. European Journal of Law and Economics, 24, 137-164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-007-9032-8
- Cendra, J.D. (2006) Can Emissions Trading Schemes Be Coupled with Border Tax Adjustments? An Analysis vis-à-vis WTO Law Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 15, 131-145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9388.2006.00518.x
- Pauwelyn, J. (2007) US Federal Climate Policy and Competitiveness Concerns: The Limits and Options of International Trade Law. Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions Working Papers, 702.
- Weber, C. and Peters, G. (2009) Climate Change Policy and International Trade: Policy Considerations in the US. Energy Policy, 37, 432-440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.073
- Jorgensen, S., Martn-Herrán, G. and Zaccour, G. (2010) Dynamic Games in the Economics and Management of Pollution. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 15, 433-467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-010-9221-7
- Barrett, S. (1994) Self-Enforcing International Environmental Agreements. Oxford Economic Papers, 46, 878-894.
- Schelling, T.C. (1960) The Strategy of Conflict. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
- Breton, M., Sbragia, L. and Zaccour, G. (2010) A Dynamic Model for International Environmental Agreements. Environmental and Resource Economics, 45, 25-48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-009-9304-6