Cited by 80Climate Change Policy and EconomicsEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilityEnergy, Environment, Economic Growth

Towards a more effective climate policy on international trade

Open access
Dietzenbacher, Erik, Cazcarro, Ignacio, Arto, Iñaki·2020·Nature Communications

Abstract

In the literature on the attribution of responsibilities for greenhouse gas emissions, two accounting methods have been widely discussed: production-based accounting (PBA) and consumption-based accounting (CBA). It has been argued that an accounting framework for attributing responsibilities should credit actions contributing to reduce global emissions and should penalize actions increasing them. Neither PBA nor CBA satisfy this principle. Adapting classical Ricardian trade theory, we consider ex post measurement and propose a scheme for assigning credits and penalties. Their size is determined by how much CO 2 emissions are saved globally due to trade. This leads to the emission responsibility allotment (ERA) for assigning responsibilities. We illustrate the differences between ERA and PBA and CBA by comparing their results for 41 countries and regions between 1995–2009. The Paris Agreement (COP21) proposed new market mechanisms; we argue that ERA is well suited to measure and evaluate their overall mitigation impact.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41467-020-14837-5

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • CBE and PBE estimates derived from different MRIO datasets differ by less than 10% for most countries.

    “The CBE and PBE estimates derived from different MRIO datasets differ by less than 10% for most countries (16, 17).”

    From Carbon Leakage, Consumption, and Trade (2022) · cites this paper as [16]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says carbon-footprint results converged across GMRIO datasets and that results from separate datasets may not differ very much. It does not establish a difference of less than 10% for most countries or make that comparison for both CBE and PBE estimates. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Differences in CO2 emissions data, rather than trade, are the main cause of differences in CBE estimates from different MRIO datasets.

    “differences in the CO2 emissions data (rather than trade) are the main cause of differences in their CBE estimates (16).”

    From Carbon Leakage, Consumption, and Trade (2022) · cites this paper as [16]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [11]UNFCCC. Paris Agreement – Decision 1/CP.21 – Report of the Conference of the Parties on its twenty-first session, held in Paris from 30 November to 13 December 2015 Addendum Part two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its twenty-first session. (2015).
  2. [34]Scottish Parliament. Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, c 12. 2009, 68 (2009).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dietzenbacher, E., Cazcarro, I., & Arto, I.
Affiliations
  • University of Groningen (NL)
  • University of the Basque Country (ES)
Corresponding author
Dietzenbacher, Erik
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2020-02-28
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
1130-1130
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3006714519
Cited by
80
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5
FWCI
7.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zaguan (Universidad de Zaragoza) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Communities in ADDI (Universidad del Pais Vasco) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Communities in ADDI (University of the Basque Country) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Hispana (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Eusko Jaurlaritza (MDM-2017-0714)
  • Agencia Estatal de Investigación (2018-2022, MDM 2017-0714)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Energy, Environment, Economic Growth
Keywords
climate policy, international trade, production-based accounting, consumption-based accounting

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review