The parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change are meeting once again in Durban, South Africa, from November 28 to December 9.  The period covered by the Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012 and the clock is running out on negotiations for a successor agreement.  Progress at Copenhagen two years ago and Cancun one year ago was slow.   Negotiations have been blocked by a seemingly insurmountable obstacle. The United States is at loggerheads with the developing world, especially China–now the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases (GHG)–and India.  

Fortunately, there might be a way to break through this roadblock.  A formulas-based approach, building on existing commitments, could attain desired mitigation of concentrations of Greenhouse Gases, while yet avoiding the imposition of disproportionate economic costs on any single country or group of countries.  The political feasibility of our proposal has been borne out over the last year, in that the specifics have turned out to be consistent with positions recently taken by the important players.  This despite what appears to be a Gordian knot too big to be untied.

On the one hand, the leaders of India and China are clear: They won’t cut emissions until after the United States and other developed countries have cut theirs first. After all, the industrialized countries created the problem of global climate change, and got rich in the process. Developing countries shouldn’t be denied their turn at economic development, they argue. As the Indians point out, Americans emit more than 10 times as much carbon dioxide per person as they do.

On the other hand, the U.S. Congress is equally clear: It will not impose quantitative limits on U.S. GHG emissions if it fears that emissions from China, India, and other developing countries will continue to grow unabated. Indeed, that is why the Senate was unwilling to ratify the Kyoto Protocol ten years ago. Why should U.S. firms bear the economic cost of cutting emissions if energy-intensive domestic aluminum smelters and steel mills, for example, would just migrate to countries that have no caps and cheaper energy (a problem known as leakage)? Global emissions would simply continue their rapid rise in a different part of the world. Emission cap legislation will not pass the Senate as long as major developing countries haven’t accepted quantitative targets of their own.

Global issues of leakage and competitiveness can only be effectively addressed at the multilateral level. The climate change negotiators need to coalesce on a specific mechanism for setting the actual numbers for future emission targets. The framework must address the three gaping holes in the Kyoto Protocol: the absence of a mechanism for setting targets in the long run, the lack of participation by many major emitting countries, and the lack of faith that signatories will fulfill their commitments.

I see one practical solution to the apparently irreconcilable differences between the United States and the developing countries regarding binding quantitative targets: Washington would agree to join Europe in adopting emission targets that would cut substantially over the next 40 years. Simultaneously, in the same agreement, China, India, and other developing countries would agree to a path that immediately imposes binding emission targets on them. These would be targets that in the first five-year period simply follow the so-called business-as-usual path, defined as the rate of increase in emissions that these countries would experience in the absence of an international agreement, as determined by experts’ projections.

The idea of developing countries committing only to business-as-usual targets will be met with loud objections from both environmentalists and U.S. business interests because it doesn’t obligate China or other developing countries to cut emissions. But this commitment is far more important than it may sound at first. Specifically, it precludes carbon leakage from undermining the environmental goal of the agreement. The developing countries can’t go above their set business-as-usual paths as they would in the absence of this commitment and, therefore, can’t exploit developed states’ emissions reduction efforts by expanding carbon-intensive industries. This step mitigates the competitiveness concerns of carbon-intensive industries in developed countries.

Such an approach recognizes the reality that it would be irrational for China to agree to substantial cuts in the short term. Indeed, the developing countries, for their part, may object when asked to take on any kind of binding targets at all, at this stage.  But they should realize that they would gain in strictly economic terms from such an agreement.  The commitment, in an international system of emission permits trading, would give China the ability to sell permits at the world market price. How do we know Beijing would come out ahead? It is currently building roughly 100 power plants per year to accommodate its rapidly growing energy demand. The cost of shutting down an already-functioning U.S. coal-fired power plant is far higher than the cost of building a new low-carbon plant in China. For this reason, when a U.S. firm pays China to cut its emissions voluntarily, thereby obtaining a permit that the U.S. firm can use to meet its emission obligations, both parties benefit, even in strictly economic terms. The environmental benefit is that China’s aggregate emissions would voluntarily fall below its business-as-usual commitment from the beginning.

Of course, the next step to this solution requires that China and other developing countries make cuts below their business-as-usual path in future years and, eventually, make cuts in absolute terms as states gain confidence in the framework. But the developing countries must agree to the principle of making cuts similar to those made by Europe, the United States, and others who have gone before them, taking due account of differences in income. Emission targets can be determined by formulas that follow from four important guidelines:

(1) They give lower-income countries more time before they start to cut emissions.

(2) They ask richer countries for steeper cuts than poorer countries. This is a principle that turns out to have been embodied in the targets accepted by countries last year at Cancun. (See Figure 1, where the relationship between agreed emission cuts and income per capita is highly significant statistically.)

(3) They lead to a gradual convergence of emissions per capita over the course of the century.

(4) They take care not to reward any country for joining the system late.    

 Figure 1: Estimated progressivity in Cancun emmission targets (including former Soviet countries)

 An application of FEEM’s WITCH model reveals that these formulas produce emission targets that obey common-sense constraints:  no country or group of countries is asked to adopt targets that would cost it more than 1% of GDP over the century as a whole or more than 5% of GDP in any single five-year time period.

Realistically, no country (rich or poor) will abide by targets in any given period that entail extremely large economic sacrifices relative to the alternative of simply not participating in the system. It is time to stop making sweeping proposals that assume otherwise, and to pursue instead the narrow thread of the politically possible.

[The specifics of the formula's proposal are explained in "Sustainable Cooperation in Global Climate Policy: Specific Formulas and Emission Targets to Build on Copenhagen and Cancun," a background paper co-authored with Valentina Bosetti, for the annual Human Development Report just released by the UN Development Programme, Nov. 2011.  All estimates were updated in light of recent developments, relative to our earlier paper, "Politically Feasible Emission Target Formulas to Attain 460 ppm CO2 Concentrations," forthcoming, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy (Oxford University Press) Winter 2012.]

This column appears at Vox.  Comments may be posted there.

Under French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s leadership, the G-20 has made addressing food-price volatility a top priority this year, with member states’ agriculture ministers meeting recently in Paris to come up with solutions. The choice of priorities has turned out to be timely: world food prices reached a record high earlier in 2011, recalling a similar price spike in 2008.

Consumers are hurting worldwide, especially the poor, for whom food takes a major bite out of household budgets. Popular discontent over food prices has fueled political instability in some countries, most notably in Egypt and Tunisia. Even agricultural producers would prefer some price stability over the wild ups and downs of the last five years.

The G-20’s efforts will culminate in the Cannes Summit in November. But, when it comes to specific policies, caution will be very much in order, for there is a long history of measures aimed at reducing commodity-price volatility that have ended up doing more harm than good.

For example, some inflation-targeting central banks have reacted to increases in prices of imported commodities by tightening monetary policy and thereby increasing the value of the currency. But adverse movements in the terms of trade must be accommodated; they cannot be fought with monetary policy.

Producing countries have also tried to contain price volatility by forming international cartels. But these have seldom worked.  

In theory, government stockpiles might be able to smooth price fluctuations, releasing commodities in times of shortage and adding to stocks when prices are low.   A free-marketer will point out that they can undermine the incentive for the private sector to hold stockpiles.  A valid response is that this incentive is undermined regardless, because political economy never allows “hoarders” to “price gouge” in times of food crisis.    It all depends on how stockpiles are administered.  The record in practice is not encouraging.

In rich countries, where the primary producing sector usually has political power, stockpiles of food products are used as a means of keeping prices high rather than low. The European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy is a classic example – and has been disastrous for EU budgets, economic efficiency, and consumer pocketbooks.

In many developing countries, on the other hand, farmers lack political power.  Some African countries adopted commodity boards for coffee and cocoa at the time of independence. Although the original rationale was to buy the crop in years of excess supply and sell in years of excess demand, thereby stabilizing prices, in practice the price paid to cocoa and coffee farmers, who were politically weak, was always below the world price.  In response, production fell.

Politicians often seek to shield consumers through price controls on staple foods and energy.  But the artificially suppressed price usually requires rationing to domestic households. (Shortages and long lines can fuel political rage as well as higher prices can.). Otherwise, the policy can require increased imports in order to satisfy the excess demand, and so can raise the world price even more.

If the country is a producer of the commodity in question, it may use export controls  to insulate domestic consumers from increases in the world price. In 2008, India capped rice exports, and Argentina did the same for wheat exports, as did Russia in 2010.

Export restrictions in producing countries and price controls in importing countries both serve to exacerbate the magnitude of the world price upswing, owing to the artificially reduced quantity that is still internationally traded. If producing and consuming countries in grain markets could cooperatively agree to refrain from such government intervention, working through the World Trade Organization, world price volatility could be lower.

In the meantime, some obvious steps should be taken.  It is too bad that the G20 attempt to do away with bio-fuel subsidies has failed, so far. Ethanol subsidies, such as those paid to American corn farmers, do not accomplish policymakers’ avowed environmental goals, but do divert grain and thus help drive up world food prices. By now this should be clear to everybody. But one cannot really expect the G-20 agriculture ministers to be able to fix the problem. After all, their constituents, the farmers, are the ones pocketing the money. The US, it must be said, is the biggest obstacle here.

What the G-20 farm ministers — meeting for the first time June 23 — have agreed is to forge an Agricultural Market Information System to improve transparency in agricultural markets, including information about production, stocks, and prices. More complete and timely information might indeed help.

But speculation is not necessarily destabilizing. Sarkozy is right that leverage is not necessarily good just because the free market allows it.  And that speculators occasionally act in a destabilizing way. But speculators more often act as detectors of changes in economic fundamentals and provide the signals that smooth fluctuations. In other words, they often are a stabilizing force.

The French have not yet been able to obtain agreement from the other G-20 members on measures aimed at regulating commodity speculators, such as limits on the size of their investment positions. I hope it stays that way. Shooting the messenger is no way to respond to the message.

[This op-ed appeared via Project Syndicate.  Comments can be posted at that site.]

It is time for the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund to come from an emerging market country. But that has been said often before. Whining about the injustice of the 65-year duopoly under which the IMF MD comes from Europe and the World Bank President comes from the US won’t change anything. Only if emerging market countries were to unify quickly behind a single strong candidate would they have a shot at the post. They are evidently too fragmented even to make an effort to come together in this way. Thus the job will probably go to a European yet again.

Why should the person come from the South instead of Europe?  After all, the oft-repeated principle that the IMF Managing Director should be chosen on merit rather than nationality need not necessarily mean a departure from the past practice of choosing Europeans. Europe of course has some well-qualified candidates. Christine Lagarde is very impressive and capable (though I would ideally have preferred someone with economics training for this job rather than a lawyer).

But the proposition that the ongoing sovereign debt troubles in Europe’s periphery are a reason to appoint a European is wrong. Ms. Lagarde herself seems to acknowledge this.   If anything, someone without a stake in Europe might be better situated to deal with the Greeks and the others.

The important point is that Europe has by now lost its implicit claim to be the best source of serious sober adults with the experience required to run the world monetary system. There may have been a time when the adult-child metaphor had a kernel of truth. In the 1980s, for example, the Fund was run by highly capable Managing Directors from France, during a period when huge budget deficits and even hyperinflations ran wild in the developing world. But that time is past.

There are three respects in which Europe can no longer claim to be the special seat of wisdom and responsibility. In the first place, many of the emerging market governments have done better jobs running their economies over the last decade than has Europe. I refer in particular to excessive debts that many European countries accumulated during the last expansion, culminating in the mis-managed sovereign debt crisis of the last year or two. In the second place the Europeans now have three strikes in a row in choosing Managing Directors for the IMF: Each of the last three MDs resigned before the end of his term. True, neither of Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s two predecessors left in the sort of scandal that he faces. But both of their resignations revealed that the men in question had not been taking the job seriously enough.  (Incidentally, over the last decade the US has screwed up as badly as Europe: enacting fiscally reckless policies during the last economic expansion and installing an inappropriate president of the World Bank in 2005.)

Thirdly, and most importantly, it so happens that many of the best candidates this time are not from Europe nor from the United States, but rather from emerging markets. So the merit criterion happens to coincide well with the much-recognized but never-honored need to give emerging market countries more weight in the governance of the IMF, in line with their new weight in the world economy.

Indeed, it is remarkable how many excellent candidates there are now from emerging markets. That is not to say that everyone put forward by his or her government is in truth a good prospect. When Turkey’s leaders say they have at least ten good candidates, they illustrate that politicians often don’t know what qualifications are required for the job. (No country has ten good candidates.)

I count ten emerging market individuals who are unusually well-qualified for the post.  Seven of them appear to be live candidates. They come from every part of the globe.
• Agustin Carstens, current governor of Mexico’s central bank, is described as the leading prospect among the group – because his government lost no time nominating him. He indeed would be good.  And has IMF experience, which is desirable whatever the critics say. But even Latin America is not unifying behind him (for example Brazil has not been supportive), let alone other developing countries. He may be perceived as too close to the US by developing countries to get their support – and also by the Americans who might worry that having him as head of the IMF would undermine their claim to the World Bank presidency.
• Arminio Fraga, former governor of Brazil’s central bank, is another good candidate, with extensive experience. But, again, it is not clear that governments even within Latin America are prepared to unify behind someone from the region’s largest country. Perhaps as a general matter any candidate who is identified with a large regional power is more likely to provoke jealousy than solidarity from the neighbors.  Mexico is unlikely to support a candidate from Brazil and vice versa.    India is unlikely to support a candidate from China, and vice versa.
• Tharman Shanmugaratnam is my favorite candidate. He has excelled as Singapore’s Finance Minister and was just promoted to Deputy Prime Minister. In March he was chosen to head the International Monetary and Financial Committee, the panel of ministers that advise the IMF on strategy twice a year. (The incumbent was forced to leave in a hurry, because he had been Egypt’s finance minister.) I can attest to Shanmugaratnam’s intelligence.  He was my student at Harvard in 1988-89. (He caught a number of errors in a draft of my textbook.)  He also has great political skills. I think he is the sort of candidate behind whom emerging market countries might be able to unify; they need not feel threatened by Singapore.
• Sri Mulyani Indrawati is another candidate from Southeast Asia with all the right credentials. She became one of the three Managing Directors of the World Bank last year, after apparently having been forced out as Indonesia’s Finance Minister for doing too good a job. Incidentally, she is young and could be a good candidate next time around too (as could the first three).
• Leszek Balcerowicz (Poland’s former Finance Minister, deputy PM, central bank governor, and Mr. Shock Therapy) is a credible candidate. Poland would be a compromise with respect to nationality, because it is both an EU country and an emerging market.
• Trevor Manuel was a great success as South African Finance Minister, and it would be good to make better use of him than the current government seems to be doing.
• Zhu Min, former Deputy Governor of the People’s Bank of China and currently a high-ranking IMF official, is another obvious candidate.

I can think of at least three others who would also do a great job, but are apparently not as actively in contention.
• Kemal Dervis (Turkey’s former Minister of Economic Affairs) would have been excellent, but he took himself out of the running early.
• I thought they should have picked Stanley Fischer for Managing Director in 2000. A stellar economist and manager, he was Deputy Managing Director of the Fund at the time. It would have been a first step toward accommodating the legitimate desire of developing countries to break the monopoly of Europe-born and US-born officials on the top jobs in the IMF and World Bank, as Fischer was born in Zambia and had the support of a surprising number of African countries. (Disclosure: He was a professor of mine at MIT in the 1970s.) The US was not prepared to oppose Europe in support of his candidacy because in practice it would have meant having to give up the US claim on the World Bank presidency.  But he would have been the best person for the job, and still is.
• Montek Ahluwalia, the last of the ten, is Deputy Chairman of India’s Planning Commission, a position that is far more important than it sounds. But there is a presumption that the candidate should not be over 65, which would let him out if followed (and Fischer).

June 10 is the deadline for nominations. Any of the ten would do a good job. Personally, I would urge emerging market governments to unite behind Shanmugaratnam. More likely, they will remain disunited. And then it will go to Lagarde.

Comments can be posted on the sites of Project Syndicate (which holds the copyright to the op-ed), the East Asia Forum, or SeekingAlpha.

.

[Crosstalk debate, "What the Fund?" May 30.]

Korea may have an opportunity to exercise historic leadership, when it chairs the G-20 meeting in Seoul, November 11-12.    This will be the first time that a non-G-7 country has hosted the G-20 since the larger, more inclusive, group supplanted the smaller rich-country group in April of last year as the premier steering committee for the world economy.  With large emerging market and developing countries playing such expanded economic roles, the G-7 had lost legitimacy.  It was high time to make the membership more representative.    But there is also a danger that the G-20 will now prove too unwieldy, in which case decision-making might then revert to the smaller group.

When countries like China and India used to demand a larger voice in world governance based on their large populations, they did not get very far.   Substantive power in multilateral governance is allocated according to the Golden Rule: “He who has the gold rules.”    But after a few decades of miraculous economic growth rates they now have the economic heft.    China is now larger economically than Japan or Germany.   Brazil is also one of the seven largest economies.

Beyond GDP, we have recently seen a historic role reversal, in which debtor-creditor patterns have changed.    Many developing countries, breaking historic patterns, took advantage of the global boom of 2003-2007 to achieve high national saving rates, particularly in the form of strong government budgets, while the advanced countries did not.   As a result, the debt levels of the top 20 rich countries (debt/GDP ratios around 80%) are now twice those of the top 20 emerging markets.   And it is rising rapidly.   A number of emerging market countries now have higher credit ratings than a number of so-called advanced countries.  A stronger fiscal position is one of the reasons that countries like China could afford to undertake large and sustained fiscal stimulus in response to the 2008-09 global recession.   The United States and United Kingdom, by contrast, had wasted the preceding expansion running budget deficits, and hence by 2010 had come to feel heavily constrained by their debts.

It is understandable if Korea views its hosting of the G-20 as another opportunity for marking its arrival on the world stage (as when it hosted the Olympics) or for consolidating its status as an industrialized economy (as when it joined the OECD).  But it should make more of its opportunity than this.  Korea should seize the chance to exercise substantive leadership.   Otherwise, the risk is that its period in the chair could appear like a replay of the chaotic Czech presidency of the EU in the first half of 2009, which confirmed the feelings of some in the larger European countries that it was a mistake to let smaller countries take their turns behind the wheel.

Korea can serve as a bridge between the G-7 and the developing countries.  But chairing a successful meeting will be a challenge, with respect to both meeting management and substantive issues.

With regard to managing the meeting, the challenge comes from the size of the group.   There is always a tradeoff between legitimacy and workability.   The G-7 was small enough to be workable but too small to claim legitimacy.  The United Nations is big enough to claim legitimacy but too big to be workable.  The latest evidence of this was the Conference of Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen last December.  The UNFCCC proved a totally ineffectual vehicle, in part because small countries repeatedly blocked progress.    President Obama was able to make more progress by spending a few minutes in a room with a few big emitting countries than the delegates had achieved in two weeks.

The G-20 has enough legitimacy for its purpose — which is more limited than the purposes of formal institutions such as the UN, IMF, and WTO.  It accounts for 85% of the world’s GDP, for example.    But it is too big to be workable as a steering group.  A principle of multilateral talk-shops is that conversation is not possible with more than 10 in the room.  With 20 delegations, each reads prepared statements;  there is no give and take and the communiqué is a watered down least-common-denominator press release.   Not only does the G-20 have more than 10 delegations; it actually has more than 20.

The G-20 needs a smaller informal steering group within the steering group, a G-6 or G-9 within the G-20.   It could meet in the evening before the main G-20 meeting and discuss how to organize the discussion in the larger group.

Who would be in the G-6 or G-9?   It would be unwise to be too specific at this point.  Nevertheless, the US, Japan, and Europe (represented perhaps by the EU Commission), must be there on the rich-country side; China, India, and Brazil must be there on the developing-country side.   Of course the pressure to expand is always irresistible.  Europe could be represented by both the U.K. and euroland.    In Seoul, Korea has to be there as the host. Who would be the 9^th country in the G-9?   It should be the country of which the person reading this blog post is a citizen.

What about the substance of the meetings?   The group will discuss whatever the bigger countries consider it most useful to discuss at the time.    Five possible topics include:

• At long last, giving more seats on the IMF executive board to big emerging market countries, in proportion to their rising economic clout,offset by consolidation of some of Europe’s seats.
• More financial regulatory reform, such as coordination of any small taxes or penalties that members want to apply to risk-taking banks.
• Global current account imbalances. Perhaps there will be a statement agreeing that large current account deficits or surpluses tend to lead to problem (absent some good economic justification), that exchange rates and budget deficits both bear some responsibility for current large imbalances, and that the burden of adjustment should be born by neither one alone, but rather by both.
• Macroeconomic exit strategies. I personally would favor an articulation of the proposition that concrete steps toward long-term fiscal consolidation in each country need not require premature withdrawal of current fiscal stimulus. An example would be to raise the future retirement age or take other steps today to reform public pensions, even while simultaneously enacting some short-term stimulus in the US and UK.
• Moving toward a new agreement on climate change to take the place of the Kyoto Protocol after 2012. Korea is in a good position to lead, as essentially the first post-Kyoto country to accept emission targets.

Don’t judge the outcome of the meeting by what appears in the media.   Press reviews usually pronounce such summits a let-down.   But occasionally such meetings are important, in ways that are often not clear until later.

Consider the London G-20 meeting of April 2009.    It was not obvious at the time that it had been a success in terms of substantive policies.   Observers even compared it to the infamous failed London Economic Summit of 1933, which was a way of saying that the world had not learned the lessons of the Great Depression.    But the 2009 meeting appears far better in hindsight.  Looking back on 2009, fiscal stimulus turned out to be more widespread in 2009 than one might have guessed.    Similarly, global monetary policy was easy, avoiding another big mistake of the 1930s.  The G-20 unexpectedly agreed to triple IMF resources and bring the SDR back from the dead.  Even in the area of trade policy, despite fears of protectionism, the outcome was not bad at all by the standards of past recessions, let alone in comparison with the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930.   Overall, policy-makers’ immediate response to the global recession in 2009 did not repeat the mistakes of the early 1930s.

Currently, however, the advanced countries are in danger of repeating the mistake that President Franklin Roosevelt made in 1937, when he cut spending prematurely and sent the US economy back into recession.  Perhaps the G-20 will be a venue in which the big emerging market countries can remind the U.S. and the U.K. of the lesson they once knew but have now forgotten — what it means to run a countercyclical fiscal policy.

[This column was written for Project Syndicate. Comments can be posted there.]

         My last blog post listed some policies and institutions with which various small countries around the world have had success — innovations that might be worthy of emulation by others.  Of course there are plenty of other examples of policies and institutions that have been tried and that are to be avoided.    The area of agricultural policy is rife with them.   Many start with a confused invoking of the need for “food security.”

          The recent run-up in wheat prices is a good example.   Robert Paarlberg wrote an excellent column in the Financial Times recently, titled “How grain markets sow the spikes they fear.”   Grain producing countries point to the high volatility of prices on world markets and the need for food security when imposing taxes on exports of their own grain supplies, or outright bans, as Russia did in July.    The motive, of course, is to keep grain affordable for domestic consumers.  But the effect of such export controls is precisely to cause the price rise that is feared, because it removes some net supply from the world market.    (The same could be said when grain importing countries react to high prices by enacting price controls, because that adds some net demand to the world market.)   

            The current run-up in grain prices is reminiscent of the even higher spike in food prices in 2008.   As Paarlberg argues, many of the other explanations that were put forward for that episode don’t fit this time.   The importance of export controls is now clearer.

            In 2008 Argentina imposed export tariffs to prevent its grain farmers from taking advantage of high world prices.   (This case seemed particularly irrational in that, unlike the usual case, the strongest political pressures came from the growers, not the consumers.)    At the same time, on the other side of the world, India put on export controls to prevent its rice farmers from selling their product on world markets to take advantage of high rice prices.   Controls imposed by Argentina, India, and others were important contributing factors to the global spike in food prices.

            Are governments indeed being completely irrational?   The commodities we are talking about are staples in the consumption of ordinary households.   For simplicity, let’s assume it is an absolute constraint that governments cannot allow grain prices to go above a certain threshold.    Perhaps there will be riots in the streets otherwise.  In this case might it make sense to put on export controls when the price threatens to go above that level?   One can see the motivation in the short run.   But, thinking in the long run, across complete cycles, controls are not a good answer.  

            One can imagine various sensible long-term policies that might assure that this constraint is not violated, such as stockpiling, although in practice many policies sold as “food security” are not in fact applied in a sensible way.

            One solution may be for major countries that are active in the market for wheat or rice to get together and agree not to impose controls.   The result would be to stabilize prices: no more alternation of price spikes and price collapses.  Each country could then rely more on the world market to cover shortfalls than it can now, when trade is made less dependable by the threat of controls by others.   The case of rice controls was nailed in a paper on food security written last year by two students in Harvard’s MPAID program (Masters in International Development), Naoko Koyama Blanc and Diva Singh.  In their model, it can indeed under certain conditions be rational for India to follow the practice of imposing controls when the price goes up, under a regime where volatility is high because others impose controls.  But it would be more rational for India to negotiate a no-controls regime with other countries, because under that regime volatility would be lower, the controls would not be needed, and everyone would be better off.   

The current economic question is what to do about budget deficits.   The Greek crisis has made sovereign debt a genuine concern even among advanced countries.  (I should say “especially among advanced countries,” because developing countries now have stronger fiscal positions, in a historic reversal of roles.)   At this weekend’s G-20 Summit, Germany and the UK are defending strong fiscal austerity, with language that doesn’t even allow for the idea that short-term spending might be expansionary under severe recessionary conditions such as 2008-09.   In the US, Peter Orszag is reported this week to have resigned as OMB Director, not just to get married, but supposedly in part out of frustration about the fiscal outlook and President Obama’s refusal, as part of any comprehensive deficit correction program, to reverse his campaign pledge against raising taxes on those earning less than $250,000.

American economists have no shortage of ideas for cutting the US budget deficit in the long run, in economically efficient ways.   (Among other steps: limit tax expenditures.)   There are two big obstacles.  (more…)

Most observers judged as a failure the December meeting in Copenhagen of the Conference of Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).    But then the usual way of judging such meetings is to look for a communiqué that voices sweeping aspirations, such as the G-7 “decision” at L’Aquila last summer to limit global warming to 2 degrees centigrade.   In reality, without any evidence of countries agreeing what is each one’s share of the burden, such proclamations are worthless.  Better tiny steps on the ground than giant flights of rhetoric.

Is there any sign of progress, even tiny steps?    (more…)

On her visit to India two days ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was publicly rebuffed when she raised the problem of global climate change.    The Indian environment minister declared “we are simply not in the position to take legally binding emissions targets.”

No single country can address this problem on its own.  Hence the international negotiations that will take place in Copenhagen in December to try to find a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol.   But the international effort has run into a seemingly insurmountable roadblock.     On the one hand, the US Congress is clear: it will not impose quantitative limits on US emissions of greenhouse gases if China, India, and other developing countries don’t impose quantitative limits on theirs.   Indeed, that is why the Senate was unwilling to ratify the Kyoto Protocol ten years ago. The logic seems completely reasonable:  why should US firms bear the economic cost of cutting emissions if carbon-intensive activities would just migrate to countries without caps and global emissions continue their rapid rise?   On the other hand, the leaders of India and China are just as clear:   they are unalterably opposed to cutting emissions until after the United States and other rich countries go first.   And why should they?   The industrialized countries created the problem of global warming, in the process of getting rich;  the poor countries should not be denied their turn at economic development.  As the Indians point out, Americans emit more than ten times as much carbon dioxide per person.      

A total impasse.  Or is it?   I see one — and only one – practical solution to this apparent Catch-22:   The United States agrees to binding emission cuts — something like those in the Waxman-Markey bill that passed the House of Representatives on June 26;  and, simultaneously, China, India, and other developing countries agree to a path that immediately imposes on them binding emission targets — but targets that in their early years simply follow the so-called Business-as-Usual (BAU) path.    BAU is defined as the rate of increase in emissions that these countries would have experienced anyway, in the absence of an international agreement, as determined by experts’ projections.

The idea of developing countries committing only to BAU targets would provoke outrage from both environmentalists and US business interests, because it does not obligate these countries to cut emissions.  But both of those groups should realize that this commitment would be far more important than it sounds. It would preclude the carbon leakage which, absent such an agreement, would undermine the environmental goal.  It would mitigate the competitiveness concerns of carbon-intensive industries in the rich countries.  

This approach recognizes the reality that it would be irrational for China and India to agree to substantial cuts in the short term.   Indeed these countries, for their parts, will probably react with outrage at being asked to take on binding targets of any kind at the same time as the United States.   But they should also come to realize that they would actually gain in strictly economic terms from such an agreement, by acquiring the ability to sell emission permits at the world market price.

Of course an environmental solution also requires that China and the others subsequently make cuts below the Business as Usual path in future years, and eventually make cuts in absolute terms.   This can be done in such a way that the developing countries are not asked to make cuts that are different in nature than those made by Europe, the United States, and others who have gone before them, taking due account of differences in income.  But no country – rich or poor – will make sacrifices in any given period that impose huge economic costs on it.   It is time to stop making sweeping proposals that assume otherwise, and to pursue instead the narrow thread of the politically possible.

The effects of a changing global climate show up gradually, decade by decade. The effects of a changing US political climate have also been showing up gradually, year by year. A watershed was reached June 25, when the US Congress for the first time approved a bill to limit emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), by a vote of 219 to 212. But the Senate hurdle will be tougher.  The attempt to address Climate Change still has a very long way to go.

The problem

Climate Change is of course a global externality. Due to the free-rider problem, no single country, especially the United States, is likely to act on its own. The best solution is a multilateral treaty in which all countries commit to serious action together. In December of this year, a Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change will meet in Copenhagen, in the hope of negotiating a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol.

Three critical attributes were missing from the Kyoto Protocol. These attributes need to be included in any realistic attempt to tackle the reduction of year-2100 GHG concentrations to levels considered less dangerous by scientists:

i) Comprehensive participation – that is, acceptance of quantitative limits on emissions – by all major countries, including the US and developing countries.

ii) A credible framework that can establish a path for emissions reductions extending throughout the century, not just five years ahead.

iii) Some reason to think that all countries will be willing to join and then comply. This precludes targets that impose enormous economic costs on any major countries in any decades relative to the alternative of dropping out of the treaty.

For ten years — since I worked on Kyoto in the Clinton Administration — I have been thinking about how to design such a framework for assigning quantitative limits across countries. I now have a complete proposal to offer. It builds on the foundations of Kyoto, in that it accepts the framework of national targets for emissions and internationally tradable permits. But it attempts to solve the most serious deficiencies of that agreement: incomplete country participation, the need for long-term targets, and the economic incentive for countries to fail to abide by their commitments.

Although there are many ideas to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, the existing proposals are typically based on just one or two out of the following three philosophical approaches:

· science (e.g., capping global concentrations at 450 ppm) or

· equity (e.g., equal emissions per capita across countries) or

· economics (weighing the economic costs of aggressive short-term cuts against the long-term environmental benefits).

My emissions reductions plan is a bid to offer a more practical alternative: in addition to those three considerations, it is based heavily on politics.

More specifically, any future climate agreement must in practice comply with six important political constraints.

1) The US will not commit to quantitative targets if China and other major developing countries do not commit to quantitative targets at the same time, due to concerns about economic competitiveness and carbon leakage.

2) China and other developing countries will not make sacrifices different in character from those made by richer countries that have gone before them.

3) In the long run, no country can be rewarded for having “ramped up” its emissions high above the levels of 1990.

4) No country will agree to participate if the present discounted value of its future expected costs is more than, say, 1% of GDP.

5) No country will continue to abide by targets that cost it more than, say, 5% of GDP in any one budget period.

6) If one major country drops out, others will become discouraged and the system may unravel.

The proposal

The proposed plan sets the emissions caps using formulas that assign quantitative emissions limits to countries in every five-year period from now until 2100. Operationally, four political constraints are particularly important in specifying the formulas.

· First, “carbon leakage” is precluded, by including all countries from the beginning

· Yet developing countries are not asked to bear any cost in the early years.

· Even later, developing countries are not asked to make any sacrifice that is different from the earlier sacrifices of industrialized countries, accounting for differences in incomes.

· Finally, no country is asked to accept targets that cost it more than 1% of GDP cumulatively, nor more than 5% of GDP in any given budget period.

Under the formulas, rich nations begin immediately to make emissions cuts in line with what their leaders have already committed to.  Developing countries agree to maintain their business-as-usual emissions in the first decades, but over the longer term agree to binding targets that ultimately reduce emissions well below business as usual. This structure precludes energy-intensive industries from moving operations to developing countries (i.e., leakage) and gives industries a more level playing field. However, it still preserves developing countries’ ability to grow their economies; they can even raise revenue by selling emission permits. In later decades, the emissions targets asked of developing countries become stricter, following a numerical formula. However, these emissions cuts are no greater than the cuts made by rich nations earlier in the century, accounting for differences in per-capita income, per-capita emissions, and baseline economic growth.

More specifically, the formula incorporates three elements: a Progressive Reductions Factor, a Latecomer Catch-up Factor, and a Gradual Equalization Factor.

· The Progressive Reductions Factor requires richer countries to make more severe cuts (relative to their business-as-usual emissions) than poor countries.

· The Latecomer Catch-up Factor requires nations that did not agree to binding targets under Kyoto to make gradual emissions cuts to account for their additional emissions since 1990. This factor prevents latecomers from being rewarded with higher targets, or from being given incentives to ramp up their emissions before signing the agreement.

· Finally, the Gradual Equalization Factor addresses the fact that rich countries are responsible for most of the carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere. During each decade of the second half of the century, this factor moves per capita emissions in each country a small step in the direction of the global average of per capita emissions.

The formulas, for some convenient parameter values, turn out to imply that global emissions peak around 2035.  (See graphs below.) This targets result in a world price of carbon dioxide that reaches an estimated $20-$30 per ton in 2020, $100-$160 per ton in 2050, and $700-$800 per ton in 2100, according to economic simulations using the WITCH climate model courtesy of Valentina Bosetti. Most countries sustain economic losses that are under 1% of GDP in the first half of the century, but then rise toward the end of the century. The simulations also show that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 stabilize below 500 ppm in the last quarter of the century, and world temperatures increase by about 3 degrees. Each of the six political constraints listed above is satisfied.

Conclusion

The framework here allocates emission targets across countries in such a way that every country is given reason to feel that it is only doing its fair share, comparable to what  others have done before it. Furthermore, the framework – a decade-by-decade sequence of emission targets determined by a few principles and formulas – is flexible enough that it can accommodate major changes in circumstances during the course of the century. The hope is that only such a combination of continuity and flexibility can make the process dynamically consistent, i.e., credible.

Most climate scientists say that 500 ppm is not a sufficiently aggressive goal. We (my collaborator, Bosetti, and I) have not yet been able to achieve year-2100 concentrations of 450 ppm while obeying the same political-economic constraints. But we are still working on it. Stay tuned.

The detailed proposal is “An Elaborated Proposal for Global Climate Policy Architecture: Specific Formulas and Emission Targets for All Countries in All Decades,” NBER WP, April 2009. Forthcoming, 2009, in a volume edited by Joe Aldy & Rob Stavins for  the Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements, Cambridge University Press. Editors’ summary of the volume is at Post-Kyoto International Climate Policy, Cambridge University Press.   (See also Stavins’ blog, especially, for analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill.)

[Readers wishing to post comments are referred to the version of this post on the RGE site.]

Most international summit meetings are long on photo-opportunities and short on substance.   There was a great danger that last Thursday’s G-20 meeting in London would be merit comparison to the failed World Economic Conference of 1933, which was also held in London.   This one, however, did have genuine substance.   

Nobody reads the communiques, or listens to the press conferences of leaders or finance ministers. But here is the substance:

Top of the list of accomplishments was expansion of IMF resources. The new SDR allocation was perhaps the most noteworthy and unexpected decision: those observers who have proposed such a step in the current international crisis, or in past international crises, have usually been dismissed as pipe-dreamers (John Williamson, Dani Rodrik, George Soros, Joe Stiglitz…). In addition, there seems to have been some forward movement on international regulation of the financial sector, as the Europeans wanted. Although President Obama acquitted himself well overall, the failure to achieve agreement for coordinated additional fiscal stimulus, as the Americans wanted, was probably the greatest shortcoming of the meeting.

I believe the G-20 meeting will be remembered historically, but not primarily for the above reasons. It will be remembered as the occasion on which primary emphasis shifted from the G-7, the global steering group that until now has had a monopoly on real economic decision-making power, to the G-20. Of the various substantive ways in which developing countries could and should have been given more representation in recent years, the shift to the G-20 is the first one to have actually taken place.