Cited by 22Climate Change Policy and EconomicsClimate Change and GeoengineeringInternational Environmental Law and Policies

How to Comply with the Paris Agreement Temperature Goal: Global Carbon Pricing According to Carbon Budgets

Open access
Zapf, Martin, Pengg, Hermann, Weindl, Christian·2019·Energies

Abstract

Avoiding irreversible climate change as effectively as possible is one of the most pressing challenges of society. Carbon pricing that is uniformly valid on a global and cross-sectoral basis represents a cost-efficient policy tool to meet this challenge. Carbon pricing allows external costs to be allocated or internalized on a polluter-pays principle. It is shown that a global emissions cap-and-trade system is the most suitable market-based instrument for reducing global emissions levels, in line with the temperature goal set by the Paris Agreement. A proposal for its design is presented in this paper. This instrument encourages worldwide measures, with the lowest marginal abatement cost, according to a pre-defined reduction path. Thereby, it ensures compliance with a specified remaining carbon budget to meet a certain temperature limit in a cost-efficient manner. Possible reduction paths are presented in this paper. Weaknesses in the design of existing emissions trading systems (ETS), such as the EU ETS, are identified and avoided in the proposed instrument. The framework solves several problems of today’s climate change policies, like the free rider problem, carbon leakage, rebound effects or the green paradox. The introduction of a global uniform carbon pricing instrument and its concrete design should be the subject of policy, especially at the United Nations climate change conferences, as soon as possible in order to allow for rapid implementation. If a global ETS with a uniform carbon price could be introduced, additional governmental regulations with regard to carbon emissions would become obsolete.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/en12152983

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 64 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zapf, M., Pengg, H., & Weindl, C.
Affiliations
  • Coburg University of Applied Sciences (DE)
  • Audi (Germany) (DE)
Corresponding author
Zapf, Martin
Venue
Energies
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2019-08-02
Volume
12
Issue
15
Pages
2983
ISSN
1996-1073 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2965764092
Cited by
22
References
64
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3
FWCI
3.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Energies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate Change and Geoengineering
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › International Environmental Law and Policies
Keywords
Paris Agreement, carbon pricing, carbon balance, emissions trading, emissions trading system, EU Emissions Trading System, free-rider problem, carbon leakage, rebound effect, green paradox, marginal abatement cost, climate policy, cost efficiency

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