Skip to content
EEEP
Menu
  • 2012
    • Volume 1
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
      • Number 3
  • 2013
    • Volume 2
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2014
    • Volume 3
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2015
    • Volume 4
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2016
    • Volume 5
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2017
    • Volume 6
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2018
    • Volume 7
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2019
    • Volume 8
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2020
    • Volume 9
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2021
    • Volume 10
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
    • Volume 9
      • Number 2
  • 2022
    • Volume 10
      • Number 2
    • Volume 11
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2023
    • Volume 11
      • Number 2
    • Volume 12
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2024
    • Volume 13
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2025
    • Volume 14
      • Number 1
  • 2026
    • Volume 15
      • Number 1
Menu

EEEP » 2012 » Volume 1 » Number 2 » Global Climate Games: How Pricing and a Green Fund Foster Cooperation

Global Climate Games: How Pricing and a Green Fund Foster Cooperation

Posted on February 4, 2026February 9, 2026 by admin

The most efficient global climate policy is to price carbon. The Kyoto-Copenhagen agenda was intended to do this with a system of international cap and trade. We view these negotiations as a game in which countries choose their quantity targets based on self interest. Like the analogous public-goods game, in which countries choose their abatement levels, we find this game leads to uncooperative behavior and suggest that this is why the Kyoto approach inevitably failed.
By contrast, a game in which all countries vote for a global quantity target or a global price target can lead to a highly cooperative choice of target. However, the assignment of responsibilities for a global quantity target stymies implementation of a global cap. The global-price-target game largely overcomes this barrier, because a uniform global price providesafocalpointforcooperation.Howeverlow-emission countries apparently prefer a much lower global-price than more prosperous countries unless a Green Fund is implemented. A game that couples such a fund to the global price target can largely overcome this barrier to cooperation. We describe such a game along with its equilibrium outcome, which promises to be inexpensive and cooperative.

Authors: Peter Cramton and Steven Stoft
DOI: 10.5547/2160-5890.1.2.9
Keywords: Cap and trade, Climate change, Green fund, International environmental agreement
🔐 Download PDF

Account

  • Log in

Tags

Air pollution carbon emissions Carbon tax China Climate change Climate change mitigation Climate policy Coal computable general equilibrium Cost of Debt Decentralized energy governance Demand side difference-­in-­differences Electricity generation Electricity market design Electricity markets Energy Energy efficiency Energy Policy Energy R&D Energy security Energy transition environmental regulation Europe evaluation Geopolitics Introduction Investment Long-term contracts Middle East Natural gas Oil prices Regional markets Regulation Renewable energy Renewables Resilience Resource adequacy Scenario analysis Scenarios Sustainability sustainable development Techno-bias Transmission benefits willingness-to-pay

Archives

  • March 2026
  • February 2026
© 2026 EEEP | Powered by Minimalist Blog WordPress Theme