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
      • Number 2
      • Number 3
      • Number 4
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
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Tags

carbon emissions Carbon tax China Climate change Climate policy computable general equilibrium Cost of Debt Decentralized energy governance difference-­in-­differences Electricity generation electricity market Electricity market design Electricity markets Electric Utilities Energy Energy communities Energy crisis energy economics Energy efficiency Energy Policy Energy poverty Energy security Energy transition Europe European Union evaluation Flexibility Geopolitics Investment market design Merit Order Middle East Natural gas Policy policy instruments quantile regression Regulation Renewable energy Renewables Resilience Resource adequacy Scenarios Smart meters Spain Sub-Saharan Africa

Archives

  • August 2026
  • July 2026
  • June 2026
  • April 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
© 2026 EEEP | Powered by Minimalist Blog WordPress Theme