Climate Change Policy for India

  • Warwick J. Mckibbin


The global community has been struggling with the issue of how to effectively respond to the threat of climate change for several decades. In 1992, the United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro produced a landmark treaty on climate change that undertook to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. By focusing on stabilization, however, the treaty implicitly adopted the position that the risks posed by climate change require that emissions be reduced no matter what the cost. The agreement, signed and ratified by more than 186 countries, including the United States, spawned numerous subsequent rounds of climate negotiations aimed at rolling back emissions from industrialized countries to the levels that prevailed in 1990. To date, however, the negotiations have had little effect on greenhouse gas emissions and have not produced a detectable slowing in the rate of emissions growth. The treaty’s implementing protocol, the 1997 Kyoto agreement, has stalled after being heavily diluted at subsequent negotiations in Bonn and Marrakesh.2 The survival of the Kyoto Protocol in its current form is waiting for ratification from Russia. More than a decade of negotiations has produced a policy that is very strict in principle but completely ineffective in practice.


Gross Domestic Product Carbon Emission Clean Development Mechanism Climate Policy Kyoto Protocol 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bagnoli, P., McKibbin, W. and P. Wilcoxen (1996). ‘Future Projections and Structural Change’, in Climate Change: Integrating Economics and Policy, N, Nakicenovic, W. Nordhaus, R. Richels and F. Toth (eds), CP 96–1, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria, pp. 181–206.Google Scholar
  2. Blanchard O. and S. Fischer (1989). Lectures on Macroeconomics, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
  3. Buchner B., Carraro, C. and I. Cersosimo (2001). ‘One the Consequences of the U.S. Withdrawal from the Kyoto/Bonn Protocol’, paper presented at the 17e1 Annual Congress of the European Economic Association, Venice, August 2002.Google Scholar
  4. Bohringer, C. (2001). ‘Climate Policies from Kyoto to Bonn: From little to nothing?’ ZEW Discussion Paper No. 01–49, Mannheim.Google Scholar
  5. Energy Information Agency (2004). ‘International Energy Outlook’, Department of Energy, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  6. Fisher-Vanden K., et al. (1997). ‘Carbon Taxes and India’, Energy Economics, 19 (3): 289–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gupta S. and S. Hall (1997a). ‘Economic Growth, Energy Demand and Carbon Dioxide Emissions in India: 1990–2000’, Environment and Development Economics, 2 (2): 173–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gupta S. and S. Hall (1997b). ‘Stabilizing Energy related CO2 Emissions for India’, Energy Economics, 19 (3): 125–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hertel T. (ed.) (1997). Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and Applications Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001). Climate Change 2001, 3 vols, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  11. Jorgenson, D. and P. Wilcoxen (1991). ‘Global Change, Energy Prices and U.S. Economic Growth’, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 3 (1): 135–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kemfert, Claudia (2001). ‘Economic Effects of Alternative Climate Policy Strategies’, FEEM Working Paper 85. 01 (also mimeo University of Oldenburg).Google Scholar
  13. Kumar K, Kavi, S. and J. Parikh (2001). ‘Indian Agriculture and Climate Sensitivity’, Global Environmental Change, 11: 147–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Löschel, A. and Z. Zhang (2002). ‘The Economic and Environmental Implications of the US Repudiation of the Kyoto Protocol and the Subsequent Deals in Bonn and Marrakech’, Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv - Review of World Economics, 138 (4).Google Scholar
  15. McKibbin W., Pearce, D. and A. Stegman (2004). ‘Long Run Projections for Climate Change Scenarios’, forthcoming working paper for The Lowy Institute for International Policy and ANU.Google Scholar
  16. McKibbin W. and J. Sachs (1991). Global Linkages: Macroeconomic Interdependence and Co-operation in the World Economy, Brookings Institution, JuneGoogle Scholar
  17. McKibbin W. and K. Singh (2003). ‘Monetary Regimes in India’, in Indian Economic Reforms, R. Jha (ed.), Palgrave-Macmillan, Bassingstoke, UK, pp. 11–50.Google Scholar
  18. McKibbin W. and D. Vines (2000). ‘Modelling Reality: The Need for Both Intertemporal Optimization and Stickiness in Models for Policymaking’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 16(4): (ISSN 0266903X).Google Scholar
  19. McKibbin, W. and P. Wilcoxen (1997). ‘A Better Way to Slow Global Climate Change’, Brookings Policy Brief, No. 17, June, The Brookings Institution, Washington.Google Scholar
  20. McKibbin, W. and P. Wilcoxen (1998). ‘The Theoretical and Empirical Structure of the G- Cubed Model’, Economic Modelling, 16 (1): 123–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McKibbin, W. and P. Wilcoxen (2002a). Climate Change Policy After Kyoto: A Blueprint for a Realistic Approach, The Brookings Institution, Washington.Google Scholar
  22. McKibbin, W. and P. Wilcoxen (2002b). ‘The Role of Economics in Climate Change Policy’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16 (2): 107–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McKibbin W. and P. Wilcoxen (2004) ‘Estimates of the Costs of Kyoto-Marrakesh Versus The McKibbin—Wilcoxen Blueprint’, Energy Policy, 32 (4): 467–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Murthy N., Panda, M. and J. Parikh (1997). ‘Economic Growth, Energy Demand and Carbon Dioxide Emissions in India: 1990–2020’, Environment and Development Economics, 19: 327–54Google Scholar
  25. Obstfeld M. and K. Rogoff (1996). Foundations of International Macroeconomics, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
  26. Pachauri R. (2003). ‘Global Climate Change: Indian Perspective Revisited and Restated’, in Toman, et al. (2003)Google Scholar
  27. Parikh J. and K. Parikh (2002). ‘Climate Change: India’s Perceptions, Positions, Policies and Possiblities’, OECD seminar paper, OECD Paris.Google Scholar
  28. Pizer, William A. (1997). ‘Prices vs. Quantities Revisited: The Case of Climate Change’, Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 98–02, Washington: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  29. Ramsey, F. (1928). ‘A Mathematical Theory of Saving’, Economic Journal, 38: 543–59, December.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Roberts, M. and A. Spence (1976). ‘Effluent Charges and Licenses under Uncertainty’, Journal of Public Economics, 5: 193–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shukla P., Chosh, D. and A. Garg (2003). ‘Economic Drivers of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in India Future Energy Trends and GHG Emissions for India’, in Toman, et al. (2003).Google Scholar
  32. Shyamal P. and R. Bhattacharay (2004) ‘CO2 Emission from Energy Use in India: A Decomposition Analysis’, Energy Policy, 32 (5): 585–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Solow, R. (1956). A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70: 65–94.Google Scholar
  34. Toman M., Chakravorty, U. and S. Gupta (eds) (2003) India and Global Climate Change: Perspectives on Economics and Policy from a Developing Country Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Treadway, A. (1969). On Rational Entrepreneurial Behavior and the Demand for Investment’. Review of Economic Studies, 36(106): 227–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Weitzman, M. (1974). Prices vs. Quantities’, Review of Economic Studies, 41: 477–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Weyant, J. (ed.) (1999). The Costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-model Evaluation’, The Energy Journal, Special Issue.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Warwick J. McKibbin 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Warwick J. Mckibbin

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations