The purpose of this chapter is to examine the major types of policies and measures
that can be used to mitigate net concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in
Alternative policy instruments are described and assessed in terms of specific
criteria, on the basis of the most recent literature. Naturally, emphasis is
on the instruments mentioned in the Kyoto Protocol (the Kyoto mechanisms), because
they focus on achieving GHG emissions limits, and the extent of their envisaged
international application is unprecedented. In addition to economic dimensions,
political, economic, legal, and institutional elements are considered insofar
as they are relevant to the discussion of policies and measures.
Any individual country can choose from a large set of possible policies, measures,
and instruments to limit domestic GHG emissions. These can be categorized into
market-based instruments (which include taxes on emissions, carbon, and/or energy,
tradable permits, subsidies, and depositrefund systems), regulatory instruments
(which include non-tradable permits, technology and performance standards, product
bans, and direct government spending, including research and development investment)
and voluntary agreements (VAs) of which some fall in the category of market-based
instruments. Likewise, a group of countries that wants to limit its collective
GHG emissions could agree to implement one, or a mix, of instruments. These
are (in arbitrary order) tradable quotas, Joint Implementation (JI), the Clean
Development Mechanism (CDM), harmonized taxes on emissions, carbon, and/or energy,
an international tax on emissions, carbon, and/or energy, non-tradable quotas,
international technology and product standards, VAs, and direct international
transfers of financial resources and technology.
Possible criteria for the assessment of policy instruments include environmental
effectiveness, cost effectiveness, distribution considerations, administrative
and political feasibility, government revenues, wider economic effects, wider
environmental effects, and effects on changes in attitudes, awareness, learning,
innovation, technical progress, and dissemination of technology. Each government
may apply different weights to various criteria when evaluating policy options
for GHG mitigation, depending on national and sector-level circumstances. Moreover,
a government may apply different sets of weights to the criteria when evaluating
national (domestic) versus international policy instruments.
The economics literature on the choice of policies adopted emphasizes the importance
of interest-group pressures, focusing on the demand for regulation. However,
it has tended to neglect the supply side of the political equation,
which is emphasized in the political science literature of the legislators and
government and party officials who design and implement regulatory policy, and
who ultimately decide which instruments or mix of instruments will be used.
The point of compliance of alternative policy instruments, whether they are
applied to fossil fuel users or manufacturers, for example, is likely to be
politically crucial to the choice of policy instrument. And a key insight is
that some forms of regulation actually benefit the regulated industry, for example,
by limiting entry into the industry or by imposing higher costs on new entrants.
A policy that imposes costs on industry as a whole might still be supported
by firms who, as a consequence, would fare better than their competitors. Regulated
firms, of course, are not the only group with a stake in regulation: opposing
interest groups will fight for their own interests.
To develop reasonable assessments of the feasibility of implementing GHG mitigation
policies in countries in the process of structural reform, it is important to
understand this new policy context. Recent measures taken to liberalize energy
markets were inspired mainly by desires to increase competition in energy and
power markets, but they can have significant emissions implications also, through
their impact on the production and technology pattern of energy and/or power
supply. In the long run, the consumption pattern change might be more important
than the sole implementation of climate change mitigation measures (e.g. see
Chapter 2, the B1 scenario).
Market-based instrumentsprincipally domestic taxes and domestic tradable
permit systemsare attractive to governments in many cases because they
are efficient; they are frequently introduced in concert with conventional regulatory
measures. When implementing a domestic emissions tax, policymakers must consider
the collection point, the tax base, the variation or uniformity among sectors,
the association with trade, employment, revenue, and the exact form of the mechanism.
Each of these can influence the appropriate design of a domestic emissions tax,
and political or other concerns are likely to play a role also. For example,
a tax levied on the energy content of fuels could be much more costly than a
carbon tax for the equivalent emissions reduction, because an energy tax raises
the price of all forms of energy, regardless of their contribution to carbon
dioxide emissions. Yet, many nations may choose to use energy taxes for reasons
other than cost-effectiveness, and much of the analysis in this chapter applies
to energy taxes as well as to carbon taxes.
A country committed to a limit on its GHG emissions can also meet this limit
by implementing a tradable permit system that directly or indirectly limits
emissions of domestic sources. Like taxes, permit systems pose a number of design
issues, including type of permit, sources included, point of compliance, and
use of banking. To cover all sources with a single domestic permit regime is
unlikely. The certainty provided by a tradable permit system that a given emission
level for participating sources is achieved incurs the cost of uncertain permit
prices (and hence compliance costs). To address this concern, a hybrid policy
that caps compliance costs could be adopted, but the level of emissions would
no longer be guaranteed.
For a variety of reasons, in most countries the management of GHG emissions
will not be addressed with a single policy instrument, but with a portfolio
of instruments. In addition to one or more market-based policies, a portfolio
might include standards and other regulations, VAs, and information programmes:
- Energy-efficiency standards have reduced energy use in a growing number
of countries. Standards may also help develop the administrative infrastructure
needed to implement market-based policies. The main disadvantage of standards
is that they can be inefficient, but efficiency can be improved if the standard
focuses on the desired results and leaves as much flexibility as possible
in the choice of how to achieve the results.
- VAs may take a variety of forms. Proponents of VAs point to low transaction
costs and consensus elements, while sceptics emphasize the risk of free riding,
and the risk that the private sector will not pursue real emissions reduction
in the absence of monitoring and enforcement.
- Imperfect information is widely recognized as a key market failure that
can have significant effects on improved energy efficiency, and hence emissions.
Information instruments include environmental labelling, energy audits, and
industrial reporting requirements, and information campaigns are marketing
elements in many energy efficiency programmes.
A growing literature demonstrates theoretically, and with numerical simulation
models, that the economics of addressing GHG reduction targets with domestic
policy instruments depends strongly on the choice of those instruments. The
interaction of abatement costs with the existing tax structure and, more generally,
with existing factor prices is important. Policies that generate revenues can
be coupled with policy measures that improve the efficiency of the tax structure.
Turning to international policies and measures, the Kyoto Protocol defines
three international policy instruments, the so-called Kyoto mechanisms: international
emissions trading (IET), JI, and CDM.2
Each of these international policy instruments provides opportunities for Annex
to fulfil their commitments cost-effectively. IET essentially allows Annex I
Parties to exchange part of their assigned amounts (AAs). IET implies that countries
with high marginal abatement costs (MACs) may acquire emissions reductions from
countries with low MACs. Similarly, JI allows Annex I Parties to exchange emissions
reduction units among themselves on a project-by-project basis. Under the CDM,
Annex I Parties receive Certified Emissions Reduction (CERs)on a project-by-project
basisfor reductions accomplished in non-Annex I countries.
Economic analyses indicate that the Kyoto mechanisms could reduce significantly
the overall cost of meeting the Kyoto emissions limitation commitments. However,
to achieve the potential cost savings requires the adoption of domestic policies
that allow the use the mechanisms to meet their national emissions limitation
obligations. If domestic policies limit the use of the Kyoto mechanisms, or
international rules that govern the mechanisms limit their use, the cost savings
may be reduced.
In the case of JI, host governments have incentives to ensure that emission
reduction units are issued only for real emission reductions, assuming that
they face strong penalties for non-compliance with national emissions limitation
commitments. In the case of CDM, a process for independent certification of
emission reductions is crucial, because host governments do not have emissions
limitation commitments and hence may have less incentive to ensure that certified
emission reductions are issued for real emission reductions only. The main difficulty
in implementing project-based mechanisms, both JI and CDM, is to determine the
net additional emissions reductions (or sink enhancement) achieved. Various
other aspects of these Kyoto mechanisms await further decision making, including
monitoring and verification procedures, financial additionality (assurance that
CDM projects do not displace traditional development-assistance flows) and other
additionalities, and possible means of standardizing methodologies for project
The extent to which developing country (non-Annex I) Parties effectively implement
their commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC; referred to as the Convention in this chapter) may depend on the effective
implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments under the Convention
related to the transfer of financial resources and technology. The transfer
of environmentally sound technologies from developed to developing countries
is now seen as a major element of global strategies to achieve sustainable development
and climate stabilization.
Any international or domestic policy instrument can be effective only if accompanied
by adequate systems of monitoring and enforcement. There is a linkage between
compliance enforcement and the amount of international co-operation that will
actually be sustained. Many multilateral environmental agreements address the
need to co-ordinate restrictions on conduct taken in compliance with the obligations
they impose and the expanding legal regime under the World Trade Organization
(WTO) and General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT) umbrella. Neither the
UNFCCC nor the Kyoto Protocol provides for specific trade measures in response
to non-compliance. But several domestic policies and measures that might be
developed and implemented in conjunction with the Kyoto Protocol could conflict
with WTO provisions. International differences in environmental regulation may
have trade implications also.
One of the main concerns in environmental agreements (including the UNFCCC
and the Kyoto Protocol) is with reaching wider participation. The literature
on international environmental agreements predicts that participation will be
incomplete, and so further incentives may be needed to increase participation.