Limitations of single-basket trading: lessons from the Montreal Protocol for climate policy |
| |
| Authors: | John S Daniel Susan Solomon Todd J Sanford Mack McFarland Jan S Fuglestvedt Pierre Friedlingstein |
| |
| Institution: | (1) Chemical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80305, USA;(2) Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, Boulder, CO 80305, USA;(3) Present address: Union of Concerned Scientists, Climate & Energy Program, 1825 K Street NW #800, Washington, DC 20006, USA;(4) DuPont Chemicals and Fluoroproducts, Wilmington, DE 19805, USA;(5) CICERO (Center for International Climate and Environmental Research—Oslo), P.O. Box 1129, Blindern, 0318, Oslo, Norway;(6) College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QF, UK |
| |
| Abstract: | Numerous policy options exist to reduce future greenhouse gas emissions. A single-basket approach, which controls aggregate
emissions, was adopted by the Kyoto Protocol. Such an approach allows emissions reductions of one gas to be traded with those
of other gases in the “basket”, with the trade “price” determined by some weighting metric like the Global Warming Potential.
To reduce stratospheric ozone depletion, the Montreal Protocol also dealt with controlling many compounds, but did so employing
an alternative, multi-basket scheme. Trading was allowed within each basket, but not among baskets. While the Montreal Protocol
has been highly successful using this approach, we show that if a single-basket approach had been adopted the short-term success
could have been at risk due to the non-unique relationship between controls and environmental impacts when using a single
basket. Using climate policy as an example, and without considering technological and economic constraints, we further show
that the magnitude of the ambiguities in impacts associated with a single-basket approach depends on the rapidity of the emission
phaseout. Fast phaseouts lead to less ambiguity than do slow ones. These results suggest that for each set of greenhouse gas
control policies considered, the benefit of additional flexibility associated with a single-basket approach should be weighed
against the associated increased uncertainties in the impacts to ascertain whether a single- or a multi-basket approach has
the greater chance of successfully mitigating climate change. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录！ |
|
