Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Potential carbon leakage under the Paris Agreement

  • Published:
Climatic Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Carbon leakage is the effect of emissions transferring to certain countries due to others having a stricter climate policy. This phenomenon is shown to have undercut the effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol. Considering the increasingly globalised nature of the world economy, carbon leakage may have an even greater potential under the Paris Agreement some 15 years later. Although a more global approach to combatting climate change, the Paris Agreement is susceptible to leakage because of its lack of policy harmonization and enforcement mechanisms. Here, we perform the first quantitative analysis of the potential for carbon leakage under Paris, using the GTAP-E general equilibrium model of the world economy with energy and carbon emissions to analyse leakage effects under six scenarios. Two of these scenarios analyse regions implementing climate policy in isolation, two greater participation, but still not harmonized, global Paris Agreement policy, and a further two analyse the effect of a US withdrawal from the agreement. Both cases are considered with and without the US withdrawal. Our analysis demonstrates that there is potential for significant carbon leakage effects, in line with the rates produced from studies on the Kyoto Protocol. Depending on model elasticities, we find medium carbon leakage in the range of 1–9% (with a central estimate of 3–4%) under co-ordinated Paris Agreement policy across countries, compared to high leakage of 8–31% when countries operate in isolation. However, scenarios where the USA withdraws from the agreement result in roughly doubling of leakage rates, in the range of 3–16% (central estimate 7%), which demonstrates the vulnerability of the Paris Agreement in its current form. To limit leakage effects, greater policy co-ordination to achieve consistent implicit carbon prices is needed across countries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. As of 1 January 2020, the Emission Trading Scheme also includes Switzerland, but this is not included in the analysis as Switzerland is not treated as an individual region. The impact would anyway not be large enough to significantly influence the results.

References

  • Al Khourdajie A, Finus M (2020) Measures to enhance the effectiveness of international climate agreements: the case of border carbon adjustments. Eur Econ Rev 124:103405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldy J, Pizer W, Tavoni M, Reis LA, Akimoto K, Blanford G, Carraro C, Clarke LE, Edmonds J, Iyer GC, McJeon HC (2016) Economic tools to promote transparency and comparability in the Paris Agreement. Nat Clim Chang 6(11):1000–1004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexeeva-Talebi V, Böhringer C, Löschel A, Voigt S (2012) The value-added of sectoral disaggregation: implications on competitive consequences of climate change policies. Energy Econ 34:S127–S142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almer C, Winkler R (2017) Analyzing the effectiveness of international environmental policies: the case of the Kyoto Protocol. J Environ Econ Manag 82:125–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babatunde KA, Begum RA, Said FF (2017) Application of computable general equilibrium (CGE) to climate change mitigation policy: a systematic review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 78:61–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babiker MH (2005) Climate change policy, market structure, and carbon leakage. J Int Econ 65(2):421–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baranzini A, Van den Bergh JC, Carattini S, Howarth RB, Padilla E, Roca J (2017) Carbon pricing in climate policy: seven reasons, complementary instruments, and political economy considerations. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 8(4):e462

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein PM, Montgomery WD, Rutherford TF (1999) Global impacts of the Kyoto agreement: results from the MS-MRT model. Resour Energy Econ 21(3–4):375–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böhringer, C., Fischer, C. and Rosendahl, K.E., 2010. The global effects of subglobal climate policies. The BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 10(2)

  • Breidenich C, Magraw D, Rowley A, Rubin JW (1998) The Kyoto protocol to the United Nations framework convention on climate change. The American Journal of International Law 92(2):315–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burniaux, J. M. and Martins, J. O., 2000. Carbon emission leakages: a general equilibrium view economics OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 242. Organisation For Economic Cooperation And Development Economics Department

  • den Elzen M, Kuramochi T, Höhne N, Cantzler J, Esmeijer K, Fekete H, Fransen T, Keramidas K, Roelfsema M, Sha F, van Soest H (2019) Are the G20 economies making enough progress to meet their NDC targets? Energy Policy 126:238–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dröge, S., van Asselt, H., Brewer, T., Grubb, M., Ismer, R., Kameyama, Y., Mehling, M., Monjon, S., Neuhoff, K., Quirion, P. and Schumacher, K., 2009. Tackling leakage in a world of unequal carbon prices. Climate Strategies.

  • Feenstra RC, Luck P, Obstfeld M, Russ KN (2018) In search of the Armington elasticity. Rev Econ Stat 100(1):135–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer C, Fox AK (2012) Comparing policies to combat emissions leakage: border carbon adjustments versus rebates. J Environ Econ Manag 64(2):199–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fowlie ML (2009) Incomplete environmental regulation, imperfect competition, and emissions leakage. Am Econ J Econ Pol 1(2):72–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fujimori S, Kubota I, Dai H, Takahashi K, Hasegawa T, Liu JY, Hijioka Y, Masui T, Takimi M (2016) Will international emissions trading help achieve the objectives of the Paris Agreement? Environmental Research Letters 11(10):104001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Görlach B (2018) Forms and channels of carbon leakage. UBA climate change 16/2018. Umweltbundesamt, Germany. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28463.02722

  • Gosens J, Jotzo F (2020) China’s post-COVID-19 stimulus: no green new deal in sight. Environmental innovation and societal transitions 36:250–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gütschow, J., Jeffery, L., Gieseke, R., Gebel, R., 2018. The PRIMAP-hist national historical emissions time series (1850–2015). V. 1.2. GFZ Data Services. https://doi.org/10.5880/PIK.2018.003

  • Höhne N, Kuramochi T, Warnecke C, Röser F, Fekete H, Hagemann M, Day T, Tewari R, Kurdziel M, Sterl S, Gonzales S (2017) The Paris Agreement: resolving the inconsistency between global goals and national contributions. Clim Pol 17(1):16–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacquet J, Jamieson D (2016) Soft but significant power in the Paris Agreement. Nat Clim Chang 6(7):643–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King LC, Van Den Bergh JC (2019) Normalisation of Paris agreement NDCs to enhance transparency and ambition. Environmental Research Letters 14(8):084008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinzius L, Sandkamp A, Yalcin E (2019) Trade protection and the role of non-tariff barriers. Rev World Econ 155(4):603–643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maamoun N (2019) The Kyoto protocol: empirical evidence of a hidden success. J Environ Econ Manag 95:227–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcu, A., Egenhofer, C., Roth, S. and Stoefs, W., 2013. Carbon leakage: an overview. CEPS Special Report No. 79, 6 December 2013

  • Mc Daniel CA, Balistreri EJ (2003) A review of Armington trade substitution elasticities. Economie internationale 2:301–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD, 2020, “Long-term baseline projections, no. 103”, OECD Economic Outlook: Statistics and Projections (database), https://doi.org/10.1787/68465614-en

  • Paltsev SV (2001) The Kyoto Protocol: regional and sectoral contributions to the carbon leakage. Energy J 22(4)

  • Peters GP, Minx JC, Weber CL, Edenhofer O (2011) Growth in emission transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108(21):8903–8908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roelfsema M, van Soest HL, Harmsen M, van Vuuren DP, Bertram C, den Elzen M, Höhne N, Iacobuta G, Krey V, Kriegler E, Luderer G (2020) Taking stock of national climate policies to evaluate implementation of the Paris Agreement. Nat Commun 11(1):1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogelj J, Den Elzen M, Höhne N, Fransen T, Fekete H, Winkler H, Schaeffer R, Sha F, Riahi K, Meinshausen M (2016) Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 C. Nature 534(7609):631–639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schleussner CF, Rogelj J, Schaeffer M, Lissner T, Licker R, Fischer EM, Knutti R, Levermann A, Frieler K, Hare W (2016) Science and policy characteristics of the Paris Agreement temperature goal. Nat Clim Chang 6(9):827–835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shishlov I, Morel R, Bellassen V (2016) Compliance of the parties to the Kyoto Protocol in the first commitment period. Clim Pol 16(6):768–782

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Truong, T. P., Kemfert, C., and Burniaunx, J-M., 2007. “GTAP-E : an energy environmental version of the GTAP model with emissions trading”, DIW (Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung) Discussion Paper 668, February. http://www.diw.de/deutsch/produkte/publikationen/diskussionspapiere/docs/papers/dp668.pdf

  • UNFCCC, 2015. Adoption of the Paris Agreement—FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/rev.1

  • Victor DG, Akimoto K, Kaya Y, Yamaguchi M, Cullenward D, Hepburn C (2017) Prove Paris was more than paper promises. Nature News 548(7665):25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank, 2020. World development indicators: exports of goods and services (% of GDP). Retrieved from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.TRD.GNFS.ZS

  • World Resources Institute (2019) CAIT Climate Data Explorerhttp://cait.wri.org/indc/

  • Zhang HB, Dai HC, Lai HX, Wang WT (2017) US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement: reasons, impacts, and China’s response. Adv Clim Chang Res 8(4):220–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Availability of data and material

Not applicable.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Funding

This research was funded through financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, through the ‘María de Maeztu’ program for Units of Excellence (MDM-2015-0552), and from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme through an ERC Advanced Grant (grant agreement no. 741 087). The authors thank Stefan Drews for useful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lewis C. King.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

ESM 1

(DOCX 1.40 mb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

King, L.C., van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. Potential carbon leakage under the Paris Agreement. Climatic Change 165, 52 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03082-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03082-4

Keywords

Navigation