Background: Global warming is the most serious problem we face today. Each country is expected to ensure international cooperation toward minimizing risk. To evaluate the countermeasures, many researchers have developed integrated assessment models (IAMs). Then, how can each country achieve its emission quota? This study proposes models that analyze the economic impact of global warming in a region based on the results obtained by the global model. By using these suggested models, we perform a comparative analysis on three policy cases: a different regulations case, a unified regulation case, and an output redistribution case.
Results: We analyzed Japan as one of the case studies and found that more developed areas should implement stricter regulations in all scenarios. In addition, the case of applying different regulations by area (in a region) is not always preferable to using unified regulations in the region. Alternatively, the output gap between the output redistribution case and the different regulations case is much higher than the gap between the unified regulation case and the different regulations case. In all scenarios, the present values of the output of the output redistribution case are also higher than the other cases.
Conclusions: The different regulations case and the unified regulation case are based on the model without capital transfer between areas, whereas the output redistribution case is based on the model with free capital transfer between areas. Although both models are extreme situations, the regions close to the without capital transfer situation possibly have an incentive to use the different regulations policy, depending on the emission target. The regions close to the situation with free capital transfer would probably prefer unified regulation.
Keywords: 2.5° limit; Climate policy; The RICE model; emission reduction.