To address the problem of human induced climate change effectively, climate policy must embody the principles of economic efficiency, environmental effectiveness and equity. In this paper it is shown that such a climate change policy should include a broad coverage of major greenhouse gases and sources. ABARE’s Global Trade and Environment Model (GTEM) is used to analyse the economic impact of meeting a radiative forcing target using policies that focus on carbon dioxide emissions only and policies that focus on all major greenhouse gases and sources, including land use change and forestry emissions. It is projected that incorporating non-carbon dioxide gases into climate change policy reduces the economic adjustment cost significantly. Broadening the sources of carbon dioxide to include land use change and forestry emissions further reduces the economic adjustment costs.
ABARE (1996). The Megabare Model: Interim Documentation, Canberra.
2.
BrownS.KennedyD.PolidanoC.WoffendenK.JakemanG.GrahamB.JotzoF.FisherB.S. (1999). Economic Impacts of the Kyoto Protocol - Accounting for the Three Major Greenhouse Gases. ABARE Research Report 99.6, Canberra.
3.
Cheminfo (1998). Powering GHG Reductions Through Technology Advancement Final Report, Environment Canada, Toronto.
4.
DelhotalK. C.de la ChesnayeF.C.GardinerA.BatesJ.SankovskiA. (2005). Mitigation of Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Waste, Energy and Industry. Energy Journal. Dimaranan, B.V. and R.A McDougall (eds) (2002). Global Trade, Assistance, and Production: The GTAP 5 Data Base, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University, Indiana.
5.
HendriksC.GrausW.Van BergenF. (2004). Global Carbon Dioxide Storage Potential and Costs. Ecofys, Netherlands.
6.
HertelT. (ed.) (1997). Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and Applications, Cambridge University Press, New York.
7.
HesterS.AhammadH. (2002). The GTEM greenhouse gas emissions database: version 5. ABARE conference paper 02.16, presented to the Workshop on the Incorporation of Land Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions into the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) Data Base MIT, Cambridge, 5-6 September.
8.
IEA (International Energy Agency) (2002). World Energy Outlook: 2002, OECD, Paris.
9.
IEA (2004a). Energy Balances of non-OECD Regions. OECD, Paris.
10.
IEA (2004b). Energy Balances of OECD Regions. OECD, Paris.
11.
IEEJ (The Institute of Energy Economic, Japan) (2004). Asia/World Energy Outlook. The Institute of Energy Economic, Japan. (http://eneken.ieej.or.jp/en/data/pdf/253.pdf)
12.
IMF (2004). World Economic Outlook, World Economic and Financial Surveys, Advancing Structural Reforms. A survey by the staff of the International Monetary Fund, April.
13.
IPCC (1996a). ‘Summary for policymakers’, in Houghton, J.T. (eds), Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-7.
14.
IPCC (1996b). IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Reference Manual, Volume 3. United Nations Environment Program, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, International Energy Agency and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom.
15.
IPCC (2001). Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. J.T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C.A. Johnson, eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY USA.
16.
JakemanG.HanslowK.HinchyM.FisherB.S.WoffendenK. (2004). Induced Innovations and Climate Change. Energy Journal, vol. 26, no. 6.
17.
MatysekA.FordM.JakemanG.CurtottiR.SchneiderK.AhammadH.FisherB.S. (2005). Near Zero Emissions Technologies, ABARE eReport 05.1 Prepared for the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources, Canberra, January.
18.
PantH.M. (2002). GTEM: The Global Trade and Environment Model. Model documentation in progress, available at http://www.abareconomics.com/research/GTEM/GTEM.htm.
19.
PezzeyJ.C.V.LambieN.R. (2001). Computable General Equilibrium Models for Evaluating Domestic Greenhouse Policies in Australia: A Comparative Analysis. Report to the Productivity Commission, AusInfo, Canberra.
20.
PolidanoC.JotzoF.HeyhoeE.JakemanG.WoffendenK.FisherB.S. (2000). The Kyoto Protocol and Developing Countries: Impacts and Implications for Mechanism Design. ABARE Research Report 2000.4, Canberra.
21.
ReillyJ.PrinnR.G.HarnischJ.FitzmauriceJ.JacobyH.D.KicklighterD.StoneP.H.SokolovA.P.WangC. (1999). Multi-Gas Assessment of the Kyoto Protocol. MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report no. 45, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
22.
ReillyJ.BabikerM.MayerM. (2001). Comparing Greenhouse Gases. MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report no. 77, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
23.
SohngenB.SedjoR. (2005). Carbon Sequestration Costs in Global Forests. Energy Journal.
24.
UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) (1999). Conference of the Parties, Fourth Session, Buenos Aires, 2-13November1998, Item 4(a)(i) of the provisional agenda, FCCC/CP/1998/11/Add.2 (http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop4/11a02.pdf).
25.
USEPA (2001). Emissions and Projections of Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases for Developed Countries: 1990-2010. Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. (Go to http://www.epa.gov/nonco2/econ-inv/developctrypdf.html.)
26.
WatsonR.T.ZingoweraM.C.MossR.H. (eds) (1996). Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analysis. Contribution of Working Group II to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press.
