International collective action (página 3)

We discussed both the role of compliance mechanisms and how to build credibility in Chapter 21. The second issue concerns the time horizons for action under the Kyoto Protocol. Stavins (2005)

has recently repeated criticisms that the Protocol aims to do "too little, too fast"30 , aiming for excessively costly short-term reductions in emissions, without determining what should be done over longer timeframes – where there is more flexibility to make reductions in line with normal cycles of capital stock replacement. At the time the first commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol was set as 2008 to 2012, in 1997, it provided a 15 -year window for action. However, the Protocol does not provide any guidance or formulae linking the action required in the first commitment period to an overall global quantity constraint or to long-term term timetable for emissions reductions. Coupled with the incentive compatibility problem described above, these issues mean that the Kyoto framework is not currently providing a sufficiently credible, long signal for countries or businesses to make long-term investments31 .

Finally, the Kyoto Protocol has been heavily criticised in some quarters for creating quantitative obligations only for the rich countries, without placing any constraints on emissions from the fast- growing emerging economies. The US and Australia have subsequently declined to ratify the Protocol, and a number of other countries are not taking strong steps to implement it. The developing countries did in fact take on obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, but these were unquantified and allowed climate change to be addressed as part of wider national policies on sustainable development. The CDM has been the mechanism by which non-Annex 1 countries have participated in formal action on climate change mitigation, but many non-Annex 1 countries already have policies in place – taxes, renewable energy and energy efficiency goals – that discourage carbon emissions that are not recognised as climate change commitments in the framework. Furthermore, the CDM has important limitations that are considered further in Chapter 23 – not least that credits are currently generated by offsetting against a business as usual baseline rather than by reductions below the baseline. Given the limited nature of participation in the first commitment period, the Kyoto Protocol has not in practice introduced a global price for carbon.

Nevertheless, the concepts underlying the Protocol – in particular, the aspiration to create a single, efficient carbon price across countries through the use of emissions trading and the recognition that mechanisms are required to make finance and technology available to poor countries on the basis of equity – are very valuable. These are elements to be strengthened within any future regime for action on climate change.

There are strong practical reasons to build on the achievements of Kyoto in the next round of negotiations, whilst exploring ways to learn from other approaches and to increase the breadth and depth of international co-operation for climate change. The Kyoto Protocol can be seen as a first stepping-stone on the path to international co-operation on climate change, given political, economic and scientific realities32 . The institutions, mechanisms and guidelines developed under Kyoto represent an enormous investment of negotiating capital. They reflect a fine balance between the interests of over 130 countries. It is not obvious that starting from scratch with an entirely new approach would produce a more effective regime, and it could take many years for the shape of a new approach to emerge. Building on existing principles and established institutions, for example those described in Box 22.3, also helps to reduce uncertainty for investors about the intended direction of international climate policy, as well as to enhance trust between parties.

For countries that are willing to work within Kyoto, the institutions provide the framework within which to negotiate on future ambition that supports deep and liquid cross-border carbon markets. However, given the scale of action required to mitigate climate change, as we have emphasises throughout this Review and clearly demonstrated in Chapter 21, action taken by those countries that have signed up to Kyoto is necessary but is not sufficient. There are two aspects of the solution to this issue. First, as we have suggested in Chapter 21, transparent and comparable frameworks provide a way to benchmark a range of dimensions of effort between countries that prefer to work outside and within Kyoto. Second, it is important to build the kinds of institutions that enable Kyoto and non-Kyoto Parties as well as sub-sovereign bodies to engage in mitigation. We explore these types of institutions further below.

22.5 Building on national, regional and sectoral carbon markets The scope for expanding private sector emissions trading markets is high, and can generate large flows globally. Only a small portion of global emissions are currently covered by emissions trading schemes. The largest existing emissions trading scheme is the EU ETS. If trading expanded in future, for example, to cover the power and industrial sectors33 in Australia, Canada, the EU, Japan and the USA, emissions trading would grow to 2.5 times the size of the current EU ETS. Expanding further to include all of the top 20 global emitters – a relatively small number of jurisdictions, which together account for almost 80% of global CO2 emissions – would raise coverage by almost 5 times. This is shown in Figure 22.134 .

An emissions trading market of the size of 5 times the current EU ETS would create allowances that could be worth between US$87 and US$350 billion35 . These values are a function of the carbon price – which, as explained in Chapter 14, is determined by both marginal abatement costs in the covered sectors and the scarcity of allowances within schemes (i.e. the stringency of the overall cap on emissions within the scheme).

Expanding and linking regional emissions trading schemes globally will raise the scope for cost-effective emissions reductions. As discussed in Chapter 15, an efficient and equitable framework for international collective action requires a broad, deep and liquid market for carbon, covering the major emitters and operating with transparent rules. This emphasises the importance of an increase in the size and scope of emissions trading markets globally. This can occur when an existing scheme expands to incorporate new regions, through the merger of separate schemes, or through various approaches to linking, whereby several existing schemes may meet key criteria or develop harmonised rules for mutual compatibility.

Chapter 15 introduced several emissions trading schemes that have already been established or are planned in countries and regions across the globe. They vary in size, scope and characteristics. For example, the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) is a voluntary scheme. The proposed Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) will only cover emissions from the power sector. The current UK Emissions Trading Scheme covers non-CO2 and both direct and indirect CO2 emissions. Some schemes may apply price caps, others may have differing penalties for compliance. The time periods for commitments also vary, often to reflect national circumstances. Creating a single scheme would entail considerable changes to harmonise these conditions.

Linking, although less efficient than a single global scheme, can nevertheless be very useful. For example, a small new scheme may see linking to an established scheme as a short-cut to establishing credibility and price stability. Links are already being made between existing schemes. For example, the EU ETS allows the use of project credits created by the Kyoto Protocol, and some non-Kyoto parties, including the CCX, also permit purchases of these credits. Box 22.4 describes another recent development.

Box 22.4 UK-California announcement on climate change and clean energy collaboration On 31 July 2006, the UK and California issued an announcement on climate change and clean energy. The mission statement includes a commitment to "evaluate and implement market-based mechanisms that spur innovation … (and) evaluate the potential for linkages between our market- based mechanisms that will better enable the carbon markets to accelerate the transition to a low carbon economy".

California is currently developing specific proposals for a cap-and-trade scheme as part of its goal to reduce emissions 25% by 2020. The EU Linking Directive does not currently allow the EU ETS to be directly linked to schemes in countries that have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol or to sub-sovereign schemes. In the interim, one-way linking could occur through access to a common pool of offset credits from the Kyoto project mechanisms.

The key issue for efficient markets when expanding and linking schemes is that caps are stringent and in line with shared international goals. There are a number of policy issues that, although they may not have to be clarified in order to physically or feasibly link, tend to affect the desirability of linking, and therefore are important to overcome first37 . The expansion or linking of trading schemes is particularly suited to situations when countries are willing to agree overall emissions limits as part of a negotiated international framework, since this encourages transparency and compatibility of emissions trading caps and provides the building blocks for key harmonisation criteria38 . As Chapter 15 has suggested, the experience of implementing the EU ETS suggests that agreement on overall national emissions limits that are broader than the scope of the trading scheme allows governments considerable flexibility in determining the stringency of national allocations for sectors covered by emissions trading schemes. This can result in concerns about competitiveness and gaming that may undermine the effectiveness of the scheme. It could therefore be effective for international negotiations to focus directly on the stringency of emissions trading schemes.

In terms of harmonisation criteria, it is possible to link even if there are different types of emissions caps (such as absolute targets, or relative intensity targets39 ), safety valves, differing permitted use of offset credits, allocation methodologies, and differing financial penalties for non- compliance. However, such differences can make the environmental effectiveness of the schemes difficult to compare as well as lead to unintended transfers between countries. Significant shifts in exchange rates could also impact on the price of allowances, increasing volatility. There are solutions to these issues such as allocating ex-post rather than ex-ante, but these tend to increase the complexity and reduce the efficiency of schemes.

If expansion or linking is not well managed there may be negative impacts. For example, a scheme with an uncertain or unconstrained volume of allowances that can be purchased from outside the trading scheme"s coverage over a relatively short time may cause price volatility. The process of linking schemes itself may cause price instability because of the introduction of uncertainty about the impacts of linking. Expansion and linking therefore require transparent negotiations and terms of agreement in advance of trading periods. This means new trading schemes should consider compatibility carefully, ideally mirroring, and influencing, as many of the features of existing schemes they wish to adjoin.

Sectoral approaches can introduce carbon pricing in sectors that are appropriate for early trading, to accelerate the movement towards global carbon markets, as well as overcome perceived competitiveness impacts. Sectoral approaches can be used as a transition to introducing carbon markets throughout the global economy, and Chapter 15 has suggested some important reasons why certain sectors might be particularly suited to early trading. They can incorporate different levels of commitment and can be used at the multilateral or national level. Emissions intensities within sectors often vary greatly across the world, so a focus on transferring and deploying technology through sectoral approaches could reduce intensities relatively quickly, and could make it easier to fund the gap between technologies that developing countries can afford and existing cleaner technologies that the developed world is already adopting. Also, global coverage of particular sectors that are internationally exposed to competition and produce relatively homogenous products can reduce the impact of mitigation policy on competitiveness. Box 22.5 describes a global initiative already in place in the cement sector.

Box 22.5 Cement Sustainability Initiative40

Cement is one of the most energy-intensive industries. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development has developed the Cement Sustainability Initiative, with the participation of 17 companies with manufacturing facilities in Europe, the USA, India, SE Asia and Latin America. They are responsible for more than 50% of cement manufactured in the world outside China. Variations of energy use between countries shows clear scope for emissions reductions.

Through the CSI, the companies have developed common standards for monitoring and reporting CO2 emissions, and pledged to set their own targets for reducing emissions per unit of output, and make progress reports available to the public. They have also developed guidelines to spread best practice throughout the industry. The CSI includes companies from countries not covered by targets under the Kyoto Protocol. Some have expressed strong support for a worldwide sectoral approach for their industry. Participation allows companies to explore how such a scheme would work.

There are two important drawbacks to sectoral approaches. First, focusing on a few sectors may neglect emissions from other sectors that have lower abatement costs, thereby sacrificing "where" flexibility. It may also lead to inefficiency by having different implicit carbon prices across sectors. This is more likely if just a few sectoral agreements are adopted. Second, there is potential for "leakage" of emissions to sectors not included in such agreements if sectors are poorly defined, for example, if the agreements cover particular products but not their close substitutes. But even narrow coverage can make a large difference. For example, the Center for Clean Air Policy proposal for a sectoral scheme for power and industrial emissions from the ten highest emitting developing countries would cover around 30% of developing countries emissions41 .

Several variants of sectoral approaches are possible, and include harmonised sectoral taxes and sectoral trading. The latter, as for other trading schemes, requires agreement of an initial goal or cap for the sector, with ex-ante provision of allowances at this cap, accompanied by a compliance mechanism to create a penalty for underachievement. The development of sectoral benchmarks – more generalised baselines or standards applicable to multiple projects in the same sector – can also be used to generate credits by sectors that beat performance against the agreed benchmarks. Sectoral approaches could also be designed around the phase-out of old technologies or phase-in of new, low-carbon or efficient technologies. Developing countries may be particularly interested in participating in such schemes where they offer an effective way to attract large-scale financing for sectoral reform, or incentives such as voluntary or no-lose targets.

A key issue is the degree of international negotiation that may be required to determine appropriate benchmarks, but sectoral agreements may offer the opportunity for firms in sectors to agree on emissions caps, taxes, benchmarks or standards amongst themselves. There are also methodological issues to consider, such as determining sector boundaries and baselines, but the approach itself can encourage development of relevant data and provide a step towards global sectoral trading. Some benchmarks for best available technologies in the electricity and industrial sectors have already been established by EU Member States for the purposes of the EU ETS, especially for new plant42 .

22.6 Building on common but differentiated responsibilities Several types of commitment could be used to take into account equity concerns and widen participation in the international framework. Many are particularly applicable to developing countries. In general, approaches to setting international emissions reductions obligations for trading schemes can be used to take account of countries" aspirations alongside key uncertainties. Emissions quotas can be set in relation to absolute emissions levels or per capita emissions levels, and these can be set in line with appropriately revised, credible long-term goals alongside rolling revision rules for flexibility. However, as explained in Section 22.4, and as the discussion in Box 22.2 illustrated, the methodology used to distribute emissions quotas has important implications for equity. Under a system based on trading of emissions permits, initial allocations reflect the level of responsibility that each country undertakes, rather than the actual emissions reductions required to be made by that country.

Pizer (2005) makes a case for emissions intensity targets indexed to economic growth. He suggests that relative or dynamic goals are more easily adjusted to levels that stop, slow or reverse emissions growth than absolute goals. As long as their limits are not revised, they can avoid penalising unexpectedly low economic growth and the decoupling of emissions from economic growth they aim at. Pizer also suggests that intensity targets are particularly suited to developing countries because they can alleviate concerns that economic growth will be stunted by taking on obligations to reduce emissions, and may reward middle income countries such as China that have high emissions intensity levels from which to descend.

There have been a number of proposals to build on equity considerations by taking into account developing countries" emissions reductions potentials, capacity to take action and development goals, and to provide positive incentives for their further participation in climate change mitigation.

As described in Box 22.2, a multi-stage or multi-track approach allows different types of participation depending on national circumstances43 . Under these approaches, least developed countries would not be required to make reductions in their emissions in the near-term, but could be supported in making the transition to low carbon development paths either through direct financial flows, the use of flexible mechanisms, or allocations of quotas in excess of likely requirements. For middle-income and rich countries, a range of graduation criteria have been proposed that rely on indices including per capita income and emissions. Graduation criteria can allow countries to make the transition from, for example, project-based mechanisms to eligibility to participate in international emissions trading. This can also provide a useful compliance mechanism – for example, eligibility for project mechanisms could be withdrawn if a country does not introduce its own mandatory national policy frameworks for emissions trading once it has passed a graduation threshold44 .

Participation in emissions trading can also begin from "no-lose" commitments. These are "one way" commitments that provide a clear incentive for developing counties to make efforts to reduce their GHG emissions. They would allow developing countries to benefit from selling the emissions credits they generate for performance beyond an agreed limit (which could be either absolute or relative), but there would be no penalty for under-achievement. The concept could also be applied on a sectoral basis. However, it remains essential that some countries or sectors within the system have binding limits, in order to generate demand for surplus credits.

Positive recognition of developing country policies that generate emissions reductions alongside other goals may build trust. The concept of giving formal recognition to sustainable development policy and measures (SD- PAMs) has attracted increasing attention from developing and developed countries alike. An SD- PAM would be a voluntary or mandatory commitment to implement a policy or measure that makes the development path of a country more sustainable, with the co-benefit of lowering GHG emissions, many of which were identified in Chapter 12. In this way it fits well with a development-centred approach to climate change mitigation45 .

SD-PAMs would increase the visibility of a wide variety of policies that are already being implemented in developing countries that tackle both sustainable development and climate change mitigation objectives, and this is something that has been missing from the international framework so far. The approach therefore provides a quantifiable alternative to emissions reductions obligations. Quantification of sustainable development and mitigation benefits of policies would help countries to identify future strategic opportunities for those PAMs that will reduce the growth of GHG emissions and meet their own national goals, as well as to compare effort across their peers. The World Resources Institute46 has already begun to develop a database to record SD-PAMs. This might also facilitate international exchange of expertise and best practice, linking well to wider system of measures of effort suggested in Chapter 21.

Incentives to encourage the take up of SD-PAMs may be necessary, although that would intensify the importance of demonstrating that SD PAMs do provide emissions reductions over and above the emissions that would have occurred without the measure47 , as well as defining to whom they may apply, and making efficient links to existing carbon markets. SD-PAMs could also be a key method of combining and enhancing other funding sources that were previously devoted exclusively to climate or non-climate policies or measures, and attracting public as well as private investment.

There will be important issues to overcome before SD-PAMs are acceptable by developed and developing countries. Most importantly, numerous types of national policies could be covered by such an approach, and they could be complex. It would also be important to create a monitoring or review process to assess progress made against SD-PAM objectives. Pilot schemes would help clarify their applicability to key policy areas as well as the methodological issues.

22.7 Challenges of extending international co-operation to aviation and shipping Extending the coverage of carbon pricing and other measures to international aviation will become increasingly important Globally, international aviation emissions – defined as emissions from any aircraft leaving one country and landing in another – are about twice as great as domestic aviation emissions. As set out in Chapter 15, the impact of aviation on climate change is also higher than the impact of its CO2 emissions alone. Aviation has negative local impacts on noise, local air quality, biodiversity, and local climate impacts, for which local policy interventions (such as regulation on noise levels) can be used.

However, there is currently no incentive to reduce international aviation emissions, as only emissions from domestic flights are currently allocated to any country within national emissions inventories. Furthermore, many large international markets are outside the current Kyoto obligations framework. However, the industry is growing fast, and people with lower incomes, especially in developed countries, are now able to travel globally due to low-cost flights. Many national policy measures such as landing charges tend to be blunt instruments for cutting carbon emissions. However, differentiating them, for example, by length of flight or distance travelled, could improve their effects on reducing emissions.

International coordination on reducing emissions from aviation is important, for example, to avoid leakage of mitigation policies from travellers switching to different carriers, or air carriers changing their routes, or practices such as "tankering" (i.e. carrying excess fuel on planes to avoid refuelling at airports where fuel taxes are levied). The UNFCCC has requested the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) to take action on aviation emissions, recognising that a global approach is essential. ICAO has established a Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP), part of whose work plan relates to climate change emissions. Current tasks include developing guidance for states wishing to take forward emissions trading schemes, and developing a better understanding of the potential trade-offs between improvements in CO2 emissions and the effect on other environmental impacts. However, these measures do not, of themselves, regulate emissions.

The issue of aviation causing higher climate change impacts than simply that from its CO2 emissions could be tackled by setting high carbon taxes on aviation. However, we noted the particular difficulty of co-ordinating international taxes in Chapter 15. The ICAO has recently endorsed the concept of an ETS for aviation, while the EU is currently developing a draft Directive to include aviation in the EU ETS. The EU Environment Council has suggested some preliminary guiding principles to be taken into account for its inclusion, so that it is a workable model that can be replicated worldwide. For example, coverage must be clear (options include domestic, intra- EU, all flights leaving or landing in the EU), trading entities should be air carriers and aircraft operators, and the allocation methodology should be harmonised at EU level. As suggested in Chapter 15, auctioning allowances would also raise revenue and increase the speed of adjustment to carbon markets. To account for the complete impacts of aviation within an ETS, some form of discounting could be used, analogous to the global warming potential factors that are used to convert GHG emissions to CO2 equivalent emissions. Alternatively, combining emissions trading with a tax could provide extra revenue. This could provide strong incentives to innovate to reduce emissions within the sector, including in airframe efficiency, engine manufacture, airport operations, and air traffic management.

The international co-ordination of standards, including through voluntary approaches, is also an important measure. Existing international co-operation under the Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe (ACARE) requires new aircraft produced in 2020 to be 50% more fuel efficient per seat kilometre relative to their equivalents in 2000. As the target refers to new aircraft produced in 2020, it will take time for the fuel efficiency of the whole fleet to improve because of the long lifetime of aircraft. The ACARE target does provide some degree of challenge – in order to meet it, some technological breakthroughs will have to be achieved. The targets are broadly on track to being met. ACARE is an EU body, but the target is likely to have a significant impact on fuel efficiency internationally because aircraft manufacturers will want to keep up with fuel efficiency standards. In the US, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) have set similar goals.

Complementary measures to trading and standard setting include co-operation on technology, sharing best practice in ground operations, and realising the potential to reduce emissions through enhanced air traffic management improvements.

Extending the coverage of carbon pricing to international shipping has been slow, but is likely to increase in momentum Discussions on tacking the climate change impact of the international maritime industry are at a very early stage. The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Assembly in December 2003 urged its Maritime Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) to identify and develop the mechanism or mechanisms that can achieve the limitation or reduction of GHG emissions from international shipping, and asked for the evaluation of technical, operational and market-based solutions to limiting the GHG output of maritime transport.

The UK, under the lead of the domestic Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), has been pushing the IMO to consider a full range of technical, methodological and market-based options for controlling maritime transport"s emissions of GHGs, particularly CO2. Discussions are continuing on the feasibility of the EU incorporating this sector into the EU ETS as a demonstration not only of the seriousness with which the EU views this issue but also of the effectiveness of emissions trading as a control measure.

22.8 Interactions with the international trade regime The international trade regime offers one route to handle large disparities in levels of carbon pricing between major economies. Some economists48 have analysed the potential to use the international trade regime to respond to significant differences in the level of carbon prices applied in different economies. Countries could in theory impose a border tax on imports from countries with lower carbon prices – to correct for the under pricing of carbon in the country of origin. This could overcome carbon leakage or competitiveness concerns by reducing the incentive for domestic production to relocate abroad, and could increase the incentives for other countries to adopt similar measures to reduce GHG emissions. There is a clear logic here.

There has been a long-standing debate about whether border tax adjustments in response to carbon price differentials would be legal under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules. Since the early 1980s, several cases have been brought to the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) and the WTO that have implications for environmental measures or human health-related measures49 . In particular, the 1998 ruling on the "shrimp-turtle" case50 can be used to suggest that, as long as border adjustments or regulations on greenhouse gas intensity of the production process are carried out in a non-discriminatory way, they are likely to be permitted.

Adjustments to take account of carbon price differentials could also occur if exporter countries voluntarily impose export restraints within bilateral or multilateral agreements. For example, after the abolition of a global quota system, China had offered to raise its export tariffs and reduce export tax rebate rates to help manage the entry of their textiles into the EU and US markets. Under this arrangement, the revenues would have been paid to the Chinese government but EU and US producers would have been protected from high competition from abroad51 .

Notwithstanding the logic of trade measures, their potential misuse could have serious consequences for international relations and future co-operation. As we have demonstrated in Chapter 12, the competitiveness impacts that underlie these arguments for adjustments should not be overplayed. Those findings also mean that, for many goods, given their cost structures, such border adjustments may not change patterns and trends of international trade significantly. However, border tariffs or similar measures to adjust for carbon price differentials could be undesirable for the following reasons:

• Barriers to trade are inefficient. The removal of trade barriers allows countries to develop comparative advantage in production. Therefore, even if effective, they are clearly second best to implementing a similar carbon price across the global economy.

• There would be technical challenges, whether border adjustments are set nationally or multilaterally, as the current structures of cross-border levies and subsidies are extremely complex.

• If the measures are effective, they could have detrimental effects on developing countries with high export dependency on carbon-intensive goods. In Chapter 23 we examine the transition to low-carbon economies in developing countries.

• The measures could become a pretext for other measures that are essentially protectionist and support inefficient industries. This has been the danger of imposing non-tariff barriers, such as phytosanitary standards, that can be used to deny entry of exports from developing countries into rich countries.

• Such measures could make it considerably more difficult to build the trust necessary for future international co-operation.

Nevertheless, there remains the risk that in the face of significant and long-running divergences in levels of carbon pricing across borders, industry will lobby for the implementation of these measures. Chapter 23 explores how the removal of trade barriers could be used to encourage mitigation, particularly in developing countries.

22.9 Conclusions

A broadly similar global carbon price is an essential element of international collective action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Creating this price signal, through international frameworks and through a range of regional and national policy instruments, is an urgent challenge.

The most important test for the international community will be to reflect the scale of action required sufficiently within their commitments. Approaches to equity can aid this process, but action from all countries is pressing.

Some elements of a potential future framework are becoming clear. The early formation and experience gained from the EU ETS, and the decisions by California and others to establish regional trading schemes strongly suggest that deep and liquid global carbon markets are likely to be at the core of future co-operation on climate change. Stronger international coordination as these schemes emerge, incorporating new sectors globally, will greatly increase their capacity to support an efficient and equitable response to climate change.

References

Ashton, J. and X. Wang (2003): 'Equity and climate: in principle and practice', in Beyond Kyoto: Advancing the international effort against climate change. Virginia: Pew Center on Global Climate Change, pp. 61-84.

Barrett, S. (in press): 'A multi-track climate treaty system', School of Advanced International Studies, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.

Blyth, W. and M. Bosi (2004): "Linking non-EU domestic Emissions Trading Schemes with the EU Emissions Trading Scheme". OECD/IEA Information Paper for the Annex I Expert Group on the UNFCCC, Paris: OECD.

Bradley, R. and K.A. Baumert (eds.) (2005): "Growing in the greenhouse: protecting the climate by putting development first. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.

Brack, D. (ed). (1998): 'Trade and environment: conflict or compatibility?', London: Earthscan Publications.

Cooper, R.N. (1998): 'Toward a real global warming treaty', Foreign Affairs, 77(2): 66–79 Cooper, R.N. (2001). "The Kyoto Protocol: a flawed concept". Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei Noto di Lavoro 52 Den Elzen, M., M. Berk, P. Lucas, et al. (2006): "Multi-stage: a rule-based evolution of future commitments under the Climate Change Convention". International Environmental Agreements, 6(1): 1-28 Ellis, J. and D. Tirpak (in press): "Linking GHG emissions trading systems and markets". OECD/IEA Information Paper for the Annex I Expert Group on the UNFCCC, Paris: OECD.

Ellis, J., J. Corfee-Morlot and H. Winkler (2004): " Taking stock of progress under the Clean Development Mechanism". OECD/IEA Information Paper for the Annex I Expert Group on the UNFCCC, Paris: OECD.

Frankel, J. (2004): 'Kyoto and Geneva: Linkage of the climate change regime and the trade regime'. John F. Kennedy School of Government Faculty Research Working Papers Series, 42.

Frankel, J. (2005): "Climate and trade: links between the Kyoto Protocol and WTO". Environment, 47(7): 8-19 Frankel, J. (in press): "Formulas for quantitative emissions targets", in Architectures for Agreement: Addressing Global Climate Change in the Post Kyoto World, (ed). J. Aldy and R. Stavins, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Güth, W., R. Schmittberger, and B. Schwarze (1982): 'An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining', Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 3(4): 367-388 Höhne, N., D. Phylipsen, S. Ullrich and K. Blok (2005): "Options for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol", Utrecht: ECOFYS.

Hovi, J. and S. Kallbekken (2004): "The Price of Non-compliance with the Kyoto Protocol: The remarkable case of Norway", Working Paper 7, Oslo: Center for International Climate and Environmental Research.

EL PRESENTE TEXTO ES SOLO UNA SELECCION DEL TRABAJO ORIGINAL.
PARA CONSULTAR LA MONOGRAFIA COMPLETA SELECCIONAR LA OPCION DESCARGAR DEL MENU SUPERIOR.