‘US, China and the Economics of Climate Negotiations’

  • Barbara Buchner
  • Carlo Carraro


Despite the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol, the US decision not to comply with its Kyoto commitments seems to drastically undermine the effectiveness of the Protocol in controlling GHG emissions. Therefore, it is important to explore whether there are economic incentives that might help the US to modify its current decision and move to a more environmentally effective climate policy. For example, can an increased participation of developing countries induce the US to effectively participate in the effort to reduce GHG emissions? Is a single emission trading market the appropriate policy framework to increase the signatories of the Kyoto Protocol? This paper addresses the above questions by analysing whether the participation of China in the cooperative effort to control GHG emissions can provide adequate incentives for the US to re-join the Kyoto process and eventually ratify the Kyoto Protocol. This paper analyses three different climate regimes in which China could be involved and assesses the economic incentives for the major world countries and regions to participate in these three regimes. The main conclusion is that the participation of the US in a climate regime is not likely, at least in the short run. The US is more likely to adopt unilateral policies than to join the present Kyoto coalition (even when it includes China). However, a two bloc regime would become the most preferred option if both China and the US, for some political or environmental reasons, decide to cooperate on GHG emission control. If the US decides to cooperate, the climate regime that provides the highest economic incentives to the cooperating countries is the one in which China and the US cooperate bilaterally, with the Annex B−US countries remaining within the Kyoto framework.

Key words

agreements climate incentives negotiations policy 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. ABC News Online, Kyoto Protocol Gets Boost as China Signs, September 3rd, 2002. Online at
  2. ABC News Online, Kemp Addresses Earth Summit, Defends Govt Position on Kyoto, September 4th, 2002. Online at
  3. Aldy, J. E., Barrett, S., Stavins, R. 2003‘Thirteen Plus One: A Comparison of Global Climate Policy Architectures’Climate Policy3373397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrett, S. 2002Environment and StatecraftOxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrett, S., Stavins, R. N. 2003‘Increasing Participation and Compliance in International Climate Change Agreements’International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics3349376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Asahi Shimbun, Bureaucratic Battle Raises Hurdle for Emissions Control, February 11th, 2002. Online at
  7. BBC, Japan Cools on Climate Pact, January 3rd, 2002. Online at
  8. Böhringer, C. 2003‘The Kyoto Protocol: A Review and Perspectives’Oxford Review of Economic Policy19451466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Böhringer, C. and A. Löschel (2001), ‘Market Power in International Emissions Trading: The Impact of US Withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol’, ZEW Discussion Paper 01-58, MannheimGoogle Scholar
  10. Bosello, F. (2004), ‘Timing and Size of Adaptation, Mitigation and R&D Investments in Climate Policy’, mimeo, FEEM, MilanGoogle Scholar
  11. Buchner, B., Carraro, C., Cersosimo, I. 2002‘Economic Consequences of the US Withdrawal from the Kyoto/Bonn Protocol’Climate Policy2273292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buchner, B. and C. Carraro (2003a), ‘Regional and Sub-global Climate Regimes’, forthcoming in C. Carraro and C. Egenhofer, eds., Bottom-up Approaches towards a Global Climate Agreement, E. ElgarGoogle Scholar
  13. Buchner, B. and C. Carraro (2003b), ‘The Future of the Kyoto Protocol: Some Scenarios’, Report prepared for the ESRI Collaboration Project on Environmental Issues, ESRI, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  14. Buchner, B. and C. Carraro (Forthcoming), ‘Economic and Environmental Effectiveness of a Technology-based Climate Regime’, Climate Policy, ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
  15. Buchner, B., C. Carraro, I. Cersosimo and C. Marchiori (2002), ‘Back to Kyoto? US Participation and the Linkage between R&D and Climate Cooperation’, CESifo Working Paper No. 688 (8). Forthcoming in A. Haurie and L. Viguier, eds., Coupling Climate and Economic Dynamics, Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
  16. Buchner, B. and S. Dall’Olio (2004), ‘Russia: the Long Road to Ratification’, FEEM Nota di Lavoro 151.04, MilanGoogle Scholar
  17. Buonanno, P., Carraro, C., Castelnuovo, E., Galeotti, M. 2001‘Emission Trading Restrictions with Endogenous Technological Change. International Environmental Agreements’Law Politics Economics1395397Google Scholar
  18. Buonanno, P., Carraro, C., Galeotti, M. 2002‘Endogenous Induced Technical Change and the Costs of Kyoto’Resource and Energy Economics5241135Google Scholar
  19. Christian Science Monitor, Japan irked by US stance on Kyoto. March 12th, 2002. Online at
  20., Japan plans voluntary emissions regulations: E&E Publishing, January 8th, 2002. Online at
  21., Japan to ratify Kyoto Pact by late August: Jiji Press, February 13th, 2002. Online at
  22., Japan, US agree on 15 steps on global warming: Jiji Press, April 5th, 2002. Online at
  23. Coe, D. T., Helpman, E. 1995‘International R&D Spillovers’European Economic Review39859887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Criqui P. and C. Philibert (2003), ‘Capping Emissions and Costs’, in: How to make progress post Kyoto: RFF-IFRI workshop, Paris, 2003/03/19, Institut Français des Relations Internationales; Resources for the FutureGoogle Scholar
  25. Den Elzen, M. G. J. and A. P. G. de Moor (2001), ‘The Bonn Agreement and Marrakesh Accords: An Updated Analysis’, RIVM Report 728001017/2001Google Scholar
  26. Egenhofer, C. and T. Legge (2001), ‘After Marrakech: The Regionalisation of the Kyoto Protocol’, CEPS CommentaryGoogle Scholar
  27. European Commission (2001), Proposal for a Council Decision Concerning the Approval, on Behalf of the European Community, of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Joint Fulfilment of Commitments Thereunder, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  28. Eyckmans, J. and H. Tulkens (2001), ‘Simulating Coalitionally Stable Burden Sharing Agreements for the Climate Change Problem’, CORE Discussion Paper 9926 and CLIMNEG Working Paper 18, Université Catholique de Louvain, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  29. Financial Times, EU Policies could mean Russia backs out of Kyoto climate agreement – MP, March 22nd 2002. Online at
  30. Goulder, L. H., Mathai, K. 2000‘Optimal CO2 Abatement in the Presence of Induced’ Technological Change’Journal of Environmental Economics and Management39138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Griliches, Z. 1979‘Issues in Assessing the Contribution of R&D to Productivity Growth’Bell Journal of Economics1092116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Griliches, Z. 1984R&D, Patents, and ProductivityUniversity of Chicago PressChicagoGoogle Scholar
  33. IPCC2001Third Assessment ReportCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Japan Today News, Japan seeks help to get US to rejoin Kyoto talks, January 19th, 2002. Online at
  35. Japan Today News, Japan to Urge Canada to Ratify Kyoto Protocol, February 26th, 2002. Online at
  36. Japan Today News, Japan, US Discuss Gobal Warming, February 27th, 2002. Online at
  37. Japan Today News, Japan to Urge US, Russia to Ratify Kyoto pact, June 4th, 2002. Online at
  38. Kyodo News, Anti-global Warming Bill in Line with Kyoto pact, February 1st, 2002. Online at
  39. Kyodo News, Australia, Canada may Skip Kyoto Protocol: METI Official, February 21st, 2002. Online at
  40. Manne, A. and R. Richels (1999), ‘The Kyoto Protocol: A Cost-effective Strategy for Meeting Environmental Objectives?’, in J. Weyant, ed., The Cost of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation., Special Issue of the Energy Journal, 1–24Google Scholar
  41. Manne, A. S. and R. Richels (2001), ‘US Rejection of the Kyoto Protocol: The Impact on Compliance Costs and CO2 Emissions’, Working Paper 01–12, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory StudiesGoogle Scholar
  42. Nordhaus, W. D., Yang, Z. 1996‘A Regional Dynamic General-Equilibrium Model of Alternative Climate-Change Strategies’American Economic Review4741765Google Scholar
  43. Nordhaus, W. D. (1999), ‘Modelling Induced Innovation in Climate-Change Policy’, paper presented at the HASA Workshop on Induced Technological Change and the Environment, Laxenburg, June 21–22Google Scholar
  44. Planet Ark (Reuters), China says Kyoto Pact Benefits Both Rich and Poor, January 18th, 2002. Online at
  45. Planet Ark (Reuters), Brazil Cardoso Wants Bush to Fight for Environment, January 28th, 2002. Online at
  46. RBC Network, Russia to ratify Kyoto Soon, March 11th, 2002 Online at
  47. Reuters, Putin Undecided in Kyoto, Snubs UN Appeals, September 29th, 2003. Online at
  48. RFE/RL, Russia: Putin Remarks Start off International Climate Conference on Sour Note, September 29th, 2003. Online at
  49. Romer, P. 1990‘Endogenous Technological Change’Journal of Political Economy9410021037Google Scholar
  50. Stewart, R. and J. Wiener (2003), Reconstructing Climate Policy, American Enterprise Institute PressGoogle Scholar
  51. Sky News, Australia Warms to Kyoto, September 4th, 2002. Online at
  52. The Age, Australia, US Urged to be Less Selfish, August 30th, 2002. Online at
  53. The Globe and Mail, Kyoto a Go, PM Says, September 2nd, 2002. Online at
  54. The Hindu, US in EU’s Firing Line on Climate Change, October 24th, 2002. Online at
  55. The Hindu, Russia Seeks Commitments on Climate Change, October 31st, 2002. Online at
  56. The International Herald Tribune, Russia Needs the Kyoto Treaty, October 28th, 2003. Online at
  57. The Japan Times, Carbon Tax Stuck in Detour to Kyoto, January 17th, 2002. Online at
  58. The Japan Times, Emissions-trading Plan Put on Back Burner, January 18th, 2002. Online at
  59. The Japan Times, Activating the Kyoto Treaty, January 21st, 2002. Online at
  60. The Japan Times, China could Help Japan by Taking its Money and Cutting its Kyoto Target, January 26th, 2002. Online at
  61. The Japan Times, US–Japan Climate Talks Set for March, February 27th, 2002. Online at
  62. The Toronto Star, Slow up on Kyoto, OM Told, September 4th, 2002. Online at
  63. The Toronto Star, Chrétien Ratifies Kyoto, December 17th, 2002. Online at
  64. United Nations (2002), ‘Johannesburg Summit 2002: Key outcomes of the summit’Google Scholar
  65. Weyant, J. P. (1997), ‘Technological Change and Climate Policy Modeling’, paper presented at the IIASA Workshop on Induced Technological Change and the Environment, Laxenburg, June 26–27Google Scholar
  66. Weyant, J. P., Olavson, T. 1999‘Issues in Modelling Induced Technological Change in Energy, Environmental, and Climate Policy’Environmental Modelling and Assessment46785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Yomiuri Shimbun, Russia may Drag Feet on Kyoto, March 28th, 2002. Online at
  68. Zhang, Z. X. (2004), ‘Climate Change Policy’ (Comment on “Practical Climate Change Policy” by Richard B. Steward and Jonathan B. Wiener), Issue in Science and Technology, a publication of the US National Academy of Sciences and the US National Academy of Engineering, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Spring)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fondazione Eni Enrico MatteiUniversity of VeniceVeniceItaly
  2. 2.Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, CEPR, CESifo and CEPSUniversity of VeniceVeniceItaly

Personalised recommendations