160 likes | 182 Views
Explore the impact of redistributing emission reduction targets among Annex 1 regions and implementing emission trading. Analyze the outcomes of different scenarios with a focus on welfare implications for various regions. Identify key findings on permit trading, welfare changes, and participation in the proposed regime.
E N D
GTAP_E Presented by Belay Fekadu, Farzad Taheripour, Patrick Georges, David Mayer-Foulkes, Marianne Aasen, Hyun-Sik Chung, Kenatro Katsumata, Christa Clapp
Emissions targets • Present Kyoto vs. Post-Kyoto flexible target (E.g. Emission/ GDP (i.e. emission intensity) as a new flexible target variable.) • We are pessimistic: Kyoto target not reached • Redistribute reduction target such that reduction intensity ratio (=total Annex 1 reduction/Annex 1 GDP) be the same for all Annex 1 regions.
Reduction intensity ratio: sum reductions Annex 1 / sum GDP Annex 1 -837.2 / 22544597.25 = -3.714E-05 - Multiply the ratio with GDP of each Annex region to get redistribution of Kyoto reduction Experiment: • Emission trading among Annex 1 countries • 2 scenarios: Kyoto and “our” distribution of Kyoto reduction target
The Results and Analysis • When emission trading allowed, initial allocation of emission quotas doesn’t matter. Each region has the same percentage reduction in emissions in the two scenarios. Reduction emission (%)
Summing up and conclusion • USA largely gains from permit trading, and minor gains from tot improvement • EU loses more in scenario two, since they have to buy more permits • EEFSU gain less in scenario two, due to decrease in revenue from permit trading • Japan loses more in scenario two, since buy more permits • RoA1 lose less in our scenario, buy less permits • USA will participate in our regime!
Summing up and conclusion • With our scenario, US gains from staying in Annex 1 group • In Kyoto scenario, they don’t, and left