全球绿色气候基金方案设计与影响评估
|
摘要
作为国际气候融资的重大突破,2009年的哥本哈根气候大会提出建立全球绿色气候基金(Green Climate Fund, GCF)的设想,它要求发达国家在2010-2012年间提供300亿美元快速启动资金(Fast-Start Finance, FSF),并在2013-2020年间每年筹资不少于1000亿美元的长期基金,用于帮助发展中国家减缓和应对气候变化。GCF一经提出,就受到学术界和政界的广泛关注,并已经发展成为当今国际气候峰会谈判的核心议题之一。但是,由于诸多关键性问题未能获得实质性突破,GCF进展并不顺利。
融资和分配是GCF的两大核心问题,其能否有效解决事关GCF成败。从资金供给层面来看,当前发达国家之间缺乏一套公平合理的融资责任分摊方案,气候基金融资面临巨大挑战。与之相对,关于分配问题,目前发展中国家间还未能形成公平有效的资金分配机制,GCF的使用同样悬而未决。本研究集中于GCF融资分配过程中的机制创新问题,提出了在发达国家间资金筹集方案,探讨了资金在发展中国家间的合理分配问题,并对GCF设计方案的经济环境影响进行量化评估。研究最后也讨论了不同资金使用方式对发达国家融资的积极性的影响。
论文主体内容由五个部分组成：
(1)对快速启动基金执行状况进行量化评估,相关经验可用来指导下一步GCF融资分摊机制设计。根据UNFCCC近期披露的国家融资报告,分析在快速启动基金阶段,发展中国家在获取资金、发达国家在提供资金以及资金公平分配等方面积累的经验、存在的主要障碍和面临的挑战。在此基础上,引出论文后续所要讨论的问题。
(2)从GCF融资问题出发,讨论了气候基金融资责任如何在发达国家间进行分摊问题。提出一种偏好得分妥协法(Preference Score Compromises,PSC),该方案既考虑了融资时的历史责任,也兼顾了不同国家的能力水平。由于采用投票理论的设计思想,PSC能够综合权衡不同国家的利益取向,可以避免权重的主观分配问题。
(3)从GCF使用层面出发,探讨了气候资金如何在发展中国家间进行公平有效分配问题。考虑到GCF设立的两个主要目标：气候变化适应(Climate Adaptation)和气候变化减缓(Climate Mitigation),提出一种兼顾适应性公平和减排效果的ANCC分配方案。其中,适应性公平不仅考虑了一国的气候损失,也考虑了不同国家经济实力的差异。而减排效果突出于GCF在使用过程中对发展中国家主动减排的激励效应,能够促使新兴经济体碳排放显著下降。
(4)针对GCF融资和分配问题的PSC-ANCC的方案,采用了能源版全球贸易分析模型(GTAP-E),定量评估了该方案的环境经济影响。研究将全球划分为14个地区,每个地区包含13个行业部门。从居民福利、实际GDP和碳排放三个维度出发,探讨了PSC-ANCC方案对各地区影响的异质性。同时讨论了不同资金使用方式对发达国家筹资积极性的影响。
(5)进入《京都议定书》第二履约期,发达国家既要实现哥本哈根气候大会所承诺的2020减排目标,也要为发展中国家提供GCF融资扶持。本文将发达国家2020年减排承诺纳入量化分析框架中。探讨了在此基础上实施气候基金融资和分配,对全球环境经济产生的影响。该内容是对论文第五章的一个补充和延伸。
As a major breakthrough in the international climate finance, an agreement to establish the Green Climate Fund (GCF) was achieved at the2009Copenhagen Summit of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It requires the developed countries to provide USD30billion of fast-start funding (FSF) between2010and2012, and they set a goal of mobilizing USD100billion per year by2020to address the needs of developing countries.The GCF proposal was then confirmed at the2010Cancun Summit, and rapidly became one of the core issues at the2011Durban Summit and the2012Doha Summit. However, the GCF has not progressed smoothly as it raises many concerns, the details of which remain unresolved.
One of the most important reasons why the GCF has progressed slowly are the obstacles related to fund-raising and disbursement. As the benefactors, developed countries have no fund-raising schemes, and there is no satisfactory solution for enforcing the GCF among developed countries; thus, financing the GCF is a tremendous challenge. Furthermore, as the recipients, developing countries have no reasonable disbursement schemes, and there is no solution for distributing the GCF among these developing countries; thus, distributing the GCF is also causing enormous difficulties. This paper focuses on the schemes of the GCF design. By starting from the paying side, this paper discusses how to allocate the funds among developing countries, and followed by a quantitative evaluation with the energy version of global trade analysis model (GTAP-E). This research also studies how to ehance the enthusiasm of developed countries for financing the GCF. The schemes proposed in this research may be useful for the GCF design in the post-Kyoto era.
This paper can be divided into five parts when removed the preface and the conclusion:
(1) Part two provides a quantitative evaluation of the fast start finace (FSF). According to the most regional financing reports released by UNFCCC, we focus on the issue regarding how developing countries accessed the fund, how developed countries provided money and the GCF allocation between climate mitigation and climate adaptation in the fast-start funding period. The lessons will be useful for the GCF design in the future. The analysis is mainly used to propose the questions which will be discussed in the following parts.
(2) Part three discusses the issue of how to enforce the GCF among developed countries. This study develops and introduces a scheme of burden sharing named preference score compromise (PSC) method, which is a combination of environmental responsibility and economic capacity. The respective weights assigned to the two factors are determined based on the Borda rule in voting theory, which avoids the arbitrary allocation of weights. The PSC approch will be useful for mobilising the GCF in the Post-Kyoto era.
(3) Part four focuses on the issue of how to distribute the available resources among developing countries. As the twin purposes of the GCF are climate change mitigation and climate change adaptation, the ANCC approach is proposed by considering regional adaptation fairness as well as abatement efficiency. Among others, the design of regional adaptation fairness does not consider climate losses, but also embody the heterogeneity of economic strength. The purpose of abatement efficiency needs to design reasonable schemes to encourage developing countries to reduce their emissions as much as possible.
(4) To investigate the environmental and economic impacts of PSC-ANCC, the energy version of global trade analysis model (GTAP-E) is used for the quantitative assessment. The world was divided into14regions with each region consists of13sectors. The results are elaborated from three aspects, including the social welfare, the real GDP and regional carbon emissions. With the framework, the cost and benefit of the GCF finance for developed countries was also studied.
(5) In the Post-Kyoto era (2013-2020), developed countries face at least two tasks:achieving the2020emissions reduction targets pledged at the2009Copenhagen Summit and financing the GCF for developing countries. To solve this issue, the2020emissions reduction targets for developed countries were introduced into the framework, and we will investigate the effects of the GCF design while developed countries also undertake some carbon-pricing measures domesticly. This research is an improvement and the extension of those in section5.
融资和分配是GCF的两大核心问题,其能否有效解决事关GCF成败。从资金供给层面来看,当前发达国家之间缺乏一套公平合理的融资责任分摊方案,气候基金融资面临巨大挑战。与之相对,关于分配问题,目前发展中国家间还未能形成公平有效的资金分配机制,GCF的使用同样悬而未决。本研究集中于GCF融资分配过程中的机制创新问题,提出了在发达国家间资金筹集方案,探讨了资金在发展中国家间的合理分配问题,并对GCF设计方案的经济环境影响进行量化评估。研究最后也讨论了不同资金使用方式对发达国家融资的积极性的影响。
论文主体内容由五个部分组成：
(1)对快速启动基金执行状况进行量化评估,相关经验可用来指导下一步GCF融资分摊机制设计。根据UNFCCC近期披露的国家融资报告,分析在快速启动基金阶段,发展中国家在获取资金、发达国家在提供资金以及资金公平分配等方面积累的经验、存在的主要障碍和面临的挑战。在此基础上,引出论文后续所要讨论的问题。
(2)从GCF融资问题出发,讨论了气候基金融资责任如何在发达国家间进行分摊问题。提出一种偏好得分妥协法(Preference Score Compromises,PSC),该方案既考虑了融资时的历史责任,也兼顾了不同国家的能力水平。由于采用投票理论的设计思想,PSC能够综合权衡不同国家的利益取向,可以避免权重的主观分配问题。
(3)从GCF使用层面出发,探讨了气候资金如何在发展中国家间进行公平有效分配问题。考虑到GCF设立的两个主要目标：气候变化适应(Climate Adaptation)和气候变化减缓(Climate Mitigation),提出一种兼顾适应性公平和减排效果的ANCC分配方案。其中,适应性公平不仅考虑了一国的气候损失,也考虑了不同国家经济实力的差异。而减排效果突出于GCF在使用过程中对发展中国家主动减排的激励效应,能够促使新兴经济体碳排放显著下降。
(4)针对GCF融资和分配问题的PSC-ANCC的方案,采用了能源版全球贸易分析模型(GTAP-E),定量评估了该方案的环境经济影响。研究将全球划分为14个地区,每个地区包含13个行业部门。从居民福利、实际GDP和碳排放三个维度出发,探讨了PSC-ANCC方案对各地区影响的异质性。同时讨论了不同资金使用方式对发达国家筹资积极性的影响。
(5)进入《京都议定书》第二履约期,发达国家既要实现哥本哈根气候大会所承诺的2020减排目标,也要为发展中国家提供GCF融资扶持。本文将发达国家2020年减排承诺纳入量化分析框架中。探讨了在此基础上实施气候基金融资和分配,对全球环境经济产生的影响。该内容是对论文第五章的一个补充和延伸。
As a major breakthrough in the international climate finance, an agreement to establish the Green Climate Fund (GCF) was achieved at the2009Copenhagen Summit of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It requires the developed countries to provide USD30billion of fast-start funding (FSF) between2010and2012, and they set a goal of mobilizing USD100billion per year by2020to address the needs of developing countries.The GCF proposal was then confirmed at the2010Cancun Summit, and rapidly became one of the core issues at the2011Durban Summit and the2012Doha Summit. However, the GCF has not progressed smoothly as it raises many concerns, the details of which remain unresolved.
One of the most important reasons why the GCF has progressed slowly are the obstacles related to fund-raising and disbursement. As the benefactors, developed countries have no fund-raising schemes, and there is no satisfactory solution for enforcing the GCF among developed countries; thus, financing the GCF is a tremendous challenge. Furthermore, as the recipients, developing countries have no reasonable disbursement schemes, and there is no solution for distributing the GCF among these developing countries; thus, distributing the GCF is also causing enormous difficulties. This paper focuses on the schemes of the GCF design. By starting from the paying side, this paper discusses how to allocate the funds among developing countries, and followed by a quantitative evaluation with the energy version of global trade analysis model (GTAP-E). This research also studies how to ehance the enthusiasm of developed countries for financing the GCF. The schemes proposed in this research may be useful for the GCF design in the post-Kyoto era.
This paper can be divided into five parts when removed the preface and the conclusion:
(1) Part two provides a quantitative evaluation of the fast start finace (FSF). According to the most regional financing reports released by UNFCCC, we focus on the issue regarding how developing countries accessed the fund, how developed countries provided money and the GCF allocation between climate mitigation and climate adaptation in the fast-start funding period. The lessons will be useful for the GCF design in the future. The analysis is mainly used to propose the questions which will be discussed in the following parts.
(2) Part three discusses the issue of how to enforce the GCF among developed countries. This study develops and introduces a scheme of burden sharing named preference score compromise (PSC) method, which is a combination of environmental responsibility and economic capacity. The respective weights assigned to the two factors are determined based on the Borda rule in voting theory, which avoids the arbitrary allocation of weights. The PSC approch will be useful for mobilising the GCF in the Post-Kyoto era.
(3) Part four focuses on the issue of how to distribute the available resources among developing countries. As the twin purposes of the GCF are climate change mitigation and climate change adaptation, the ANCC approach is proposed by considering regional adaptation fairness as well as abatement efficiency. Among others, the design of regional adaptation fairness does not consider climate losses, but also embody the heterogeneity of economic strength. The purpose of abatement efficiency needs to design reasonable schemes to encourage developing countries to reduce their emissions as much as possible.
(4) To investigate the environmental and economic impacts of PSC-ANCC, the energy version of global trade analysis model (GTAP-E) is used for the quantitative assessment. The world was divided into14regions with each region consists of13sectors. The results are elaborated from three aspects, including the social welfare, the real GDP and regional carbon emissions. With the framework, the cost and benefit of the GCF finance for developed countries was also studied.
(5) In the Post-Kyoto era (2013-2020), developed countries face at least two tasks:achieving the2020emissions reduction targets pledged at the2009Copenhagen Summit and financing the GCF for developing countries. To solve this issue, the2020emissions reduction targets for developed countries were introduced into the framework, and we will investigate the effects of the GCF design while developed countries also undertake some carbon-pricing measures domesticly. This research is an improvement and the extension of those in section5.
引文
[1]Abadie, L.M., Galarraga, I., Rubbelke, D.2013. An analysis of the causes of the mitigation bias in international climate finance [J]. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change,50(1):111-125.
[2]Atwood, T.J., Drake, M.S., Myers, L.A.2010. Book-tax conformity, earnings persistence and the association between earnings and future cash flows [J]. Journal of Accounting and Economics,18:943-955.
[3]Baer, P.2013. The greenhouse development rights framework for global burden sharing:reflection on principles and prospects [J]. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:Climate Change,4:61-71.
[4]Basu, S.2007. The relevance of E-Commerce for taxation, in Basu, S., (Ed.), Global perspectives on E-Commerce taxation law, Ashgate, London,84-86.
[5]Beckman, J., Hertel, T.W., Tyne, W.2011. Validating energy-oriented CGE models [J]. Energy Economics,33(5):799-806.
[6]Benndorf, R., Federici, S.., Forner, C., Pena, N., Rametsteiner, E., Sanz, M.J., Somogyi, Z.2007. Including land use, land-use change and forestry in future climate change agreements:thinking outside the box [J].Environmental Science and Policy,10(4):283-294.
[7]Bird, N., Brown, J., Schalatek, L.2011. Design challenges for the Green Climate Fund[R]. Working paper climate finance policy brief No.4, Overseas Development Institute (ODI), London.
[8]Boden, T.A., Marland, G, Andres, R. J.2012. Global, regional, and national fossil fuel CO2 emissions [DB]. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy. Available at:http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/overview_2009.html. (Accessed 12 November 2013).
[9]Bohringer, C., Fischer, C., Rosendahl, K.E.2010. The global effects of subglobal climate policies [J]. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 10(2),1-35.
[10]Bosello, F., Carraro, C., De Cian, E.2010. Climate pPolicy and the optimal balance between mitigation, adaptation and unavoided damage [J]. Climate Change Economics,1(2):1-22.
[11]BP.2012. BP statistical review of world energy June 2012 [DB]. BP, London. Available:http://www.bp.com/sectionbodycopy.do?categoryId=7500&contentId =7068481. (Accessed 24 November 2013)
[12]Browne, M.A., Blanchfield, L.2013. United Nations regular budget contributions:members compared,1990-2010 [R]. Congressional Research Service. Available at:http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL30605.pdf (accessed 13 March 2014)
[13]Brown, J., Bird N., Schalatek, L.2010. Climate finance additionality:emerging definitions and their implications [R]. Climate Finance Policy Brief No.2, Overseas Development Institute, London.
[14]Buchner, B., Falconer, A., Herve-Mignucci, M., Trabacchi, C., Brinknian, M. 2011.The landscape of climate finance [R]. CPI report. Climate Policy Initiative, Venice.
[15]Burgess, J.2011. The ＄100 billion question:How do we secure a climate-resilient future for the world's children? [R]. Working paper, United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund, UK,9 May.
[16]Burniaux, J.M., Truong, T.P.2002. GTAP-E-an energy-environmental version of the GTAP model [R]. GTAP Technical Papers, No.16.
[17]Caron, J.2012. Estimating carbon leakage and the efficiency of border adjustments in general equilibrium-Does sectoral aggregation matter?[J]. Energy Economics,34, S111-S126.
[18]Carraro, C, Massetti, E.2012). Beyond Copenhagen:a realistic climate policy in a fragmented world [J].Climate Change,110:523-542.
[19]Chen, Z.M., Chen, G.Q.2011. An overview of energy consumption of the globalized world economy [J]. Energy Policy,39:5920-5928.
[20]Damodaran, A.2012. The economics of coping strategies and financing adaptation action in India's semi-arid ecosystems [J]. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management,4 (4):386-402.
[21]Dellink, R., den Elzen, M., Aiking, H., Bergsma, E., Berkhout, F., Dekker, T., Gupta, J.2009. Sharing the burden of financing adaptation to climate change [J]. Global Environment Change,19:411-421.
[22]den Elzen, M.G.J., Schaeffer, M., Lucas, P.L.2005). Differentiating future commitments on the basis of countries' relative historical responsibility for climate change:uncertainties in the' Brazilian Proposal'in the context of a policy implementation [J]. Climatic Change,71 (3):277-301.
[23]Donner, D.S., Kandlikar, M., Zerriffi, H.2011. Preparing to manage climate change financing [J]. Science,334:908-909.
[24]Dummett, M.1998. The Borda count and agenda manipulation [J]. Social Choice Welfare,15:289-296.
[25]Dutschke, M., Michaelowa, A.2006. Development assistance and the CDM-how to interpret' financial additionality'[J]. Environment and Development Economics,11:235-46.
[26]European Commission.2009. Commission staff working document accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Stepping up international climate finance:A European blueprint for the Copenhagen deal{COM(2009) 475} [R]. Available at: http://www.eumonitor.n1/9353000/1/j9vvik7mlc3gyxp/vi8j7x54tewi. (accessed 15 March 2014)
[27]Fishman, Y., Becker, N., Shechter, M.2012. The Polluter Pays Principle as a policy tool in an externality model for nitrogen fertilizer pollution [J]. Water Policy,14:1-6.
[28]Fiissel, H.M.2010. How inequitable is the global distribution of responsibility, capability, and vulnerability to climate change:A comprehensive indicator-based assessment [J]. Global Environmental Change,20:597-611.
[29]Grasso, M.2010.An ethical approach to climate adaptation finance [J]. Global Environmental Change,20:74-81.
[30]Grubb, M.2011. International climate finance from border carbon cost leveling [J]. Climate Policy, 11(3):1050-1057.
[31]Harmeling, S., Eckstein, D. (2012). Global Climate Risk Index 2013-who suffers most from extreme weather events? Weather-related loss events in 2011 and 1992 to 2011[R]. German Watch, Berlin, Germany.
[32]Hertwich, E.G., Peters, G.P.2009. Carbon footprint of nations:a global, trade-linked analysis [J]. Environmental science & technology,43 (16): 6414-6420.
[33]Hof, A.F, den Elzen, M.G.J., Mendoza Beltran, A.2011). Predictability, equitability and adequacy of post-2012 international climate finance proposals [J]. Environmental Science and Policy,14:615-627.
[34]Hohne, N., den Elzen, M., Escalante, D.2014. Regional GHG reduction targets based on effort sharing:a comparison of studies [J]. Climate Policy, 14(1):122-147.
[35]Holtzman, Y.2007. Challenges in achieving transparency, simplicity and administering of the United States tax code [J]. Journal of Management Development,26(5):418-427.
[36]Hulme, M., O'Neill, S.J., Dessai S.2011. Is weather event attribution necessary for adaptation funding?[J]. Science,334:764-765
[37]IEA.2012. CO2 Emissions from fuel combustion (2012 Edition) [DB]. http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/2012/co2-emissions-from-fuel-combustion-20 12-edition (accessed 15 December 2012).
[38]IEO.2009. World energy outlook 2009[R]. International Energy Agency, Paris and Washington, DC.
[39]Janjua, S., Thomas, I. and McEvoy, D.2010). Framing climate change adaptation learning and action:the case of Lahore, Pakistan [J]. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management,2 (3):281-296.
[40]Jones, A., Wolosin, M., Fransen, T., Nakhooda, S.2013. The U.S. Contribution to Fast-Start Finance[R]. Working Paper, World Resources Institute, Washington DC, and Overseas Development Institute, London.
[41]Lakatos, C., Walmsley, T.2012. Investment creation and diversion effects of the ASEAN-China free trade agreement [J]. Economic Modelling,29(3):766-779.
[42]Lanzi E, Chateau J, Dellink R.2012. Alternative approaches for leveling carbon prices in a world with fragmented carbon markets [J]. Energy Economics, 34:S240-S250.
[43]Lattanzio, R.K.2013. International climate change financing:the Green Climate Fund (GCF) [R]. Congressional Research Service. Available at: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41889.pdf (accessed 13 March 2014)
[44]Leahy, S.2012. The big fight in Doha is over climate finance [N]. Available at: http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/12/the-big-fight-in-doha-is-over-climate-finance/ (accessed 3 December 2013).
[45]Maraseni, T.N.2013. Selecting a CDM investor in China:a critical analysis. Energy Policy,53:484-489.
[46]Mathews, T.2014. Historical trends in the degree of federal income tax progressivity in the United States [J]. The Social Science Journal,51:90-99.
[47]Mattoo, A., Subramanian, A.2012. Equity in climate change:An analytical review [J]. World Development,40(6):1083-1097.
[48]McGee, R.W.1998. Is the ability to pay principle ethically bankrupt?[J]. Journal of Accounting, Ethics & Public Policy, 1(3):503-511.
[49]McKibbin, W.J.2011. Comparing climate commitments:a model-based analysis of the Copenhagen Accord [J]. Climate Change Economics,2(2):79-103.
[50]Muller, B.1999. Justice in global warming negotiations. How to obtain a procedurally fair compromise[R]. Working paper, Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, London.
[51]Muller, B.2001. Varieties of distributive justice in climate change [J]. Climate Change,48:273-288.
[52]Muller, B.2013.The allocation of (adaptation) resources:lessons from fiscal transfer mechanisms[R]. Working paper, the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, London.
[53]Muller, B., Hohne, N., Ellermann, C.2009. Differentiating (historic) responsibilities for climate change [J]. Climate Policy,9:593-611.
[54]Muller, B., Sharma, A., Gomez-Echeverri, L., Rook, D. P., Chandani, A.2010. The reformed rinancial mechanism of the UNFCCC. part II. The question of oversight. Post Copenhagen synthesis report. OIES EV 52[R].Oxford:Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.
[55]Narain, U., Margulis, S., Essam, T.2011. Estimating costs of adaptation to climate change [J]. Climate Policy, 11(3):1001-1019.
[56]Nakhooda, S., Fransen, T., Moe, T., Kallbekken, S., Caravani, A.2013a The Norwegian Fast-Start Finance contribution [R]. Working Paper, World Resources Institute, Washington DC, and Overseas Development Institute, London.
[57]Nakhooda, S., Fransen, T., Kuramochi, T., Caravani, A., Prizzon, A., Shimizu, N., Tilley, H., Halimanjaya, A., Welham, B.2013b. Mobilising International climate finance:lessons from the Fast-Start Finance period [R]. Working Paper, Overseas Development Institute, London and The World Resources Institute, Washington DC and The Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Japan.
[58]Nakhooda, S., Fransen, T., Wenzel, A., Caravani, A., Stasio, K.2012. The UK fast start finance contribution[R]. Working Paper, World Resources Institute, Washington DC, and Overseas Development Institute, London.
[59]Oberheitmann, A.2010. A new post-Kyoto climate regime based on per-capita cumulative C02-emission rights—rationale, architecture and quantitative assessment of the implication for the CO2-emissions from China, India and the Annex-I countries by 2050[J]. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change,15:137-168.
[60JODI.2010. Climate finance additionality:emerging definitions and their implications[R]. Climate Finance Policy Brief No.2, the Overseas Development Institute, London.
[61]ODI.2013.10 things to know about climate finance in 2013[EB]. The Overseas Development Institute, London.
[62]Oxfam International.2007. Adapting to climate change:what's needed in poor countries, and who should pay[R]. Oxfam Briefing Paper 104, Oxfam International, Oxford,29 May.
[63]Parry, M., Arnell, N., Berry, P., Dodman, D., Fankhauser, S., Hope, C., Kovats, S., Nicholls, R.2009.Assessing the costs of adaptation to climate change. A review of the UNFCCC and other recent estimates [R]. London:International Institute for Environment and Development.
[64]Peters, G.P., Hertwich, E.G.2008. CO2 embodied in international trade with implications for global climate policy [J]. Environmental Science and Technology,42:1401-1407.
[65]Porcano, T.M.1984. Distributive justice and tax policy [J]. The Accounting Review,59(4):619-636.
[66]Raman, M.2011. Developing countries submit document for Green Fund establishment [N]. Third World Network.
[67]Reilly, B.2002. Social choice in the south seas:electoral innovation and the Borda Count in the Pacific Island Countries [J]. International Political Science Review,23(4):355-372.
[68]Richardson, G.2007). The influence of culture on tax systems internationally:a theoretical and empirical analysis [J]. Journal of International Accounting Research,6 (1):57-79.
[69]Rosa, L.P., Ribeiro, S.K., Muylaert, M.S., de Campos, C.P.2004. Comments on the Brazilian proposal and contributions to global temperature increase with different climate responses-CO2 emissions due to fossil fuels, CO2 emissions due to land use changes [J]. Energy Policy,32(13):1499-1510.
[70]Salehezadeh, Z., Henneberry, S.R.2002. The economic impacts of trade liberalization and factor mobility:the case of the Philippines [J]. Journal of Policy Modeling,21(5):483-486.
[71]Sarker, M.A.R., Alam, K. and Gow, J.2009. Assessing the determinants of rice farmers'adaptation strategies to climate change in Bangladesh [J]. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management,5 (4):382-403.
[72]Schiissler, R.2011.Climate justice:a question of historic responsibility?[J]. Journal of Global Ethics,7(3):261-278.
[73]Silverstein, D.N.2013. A globally harmonized carbon price framework for financing the Green Climate Fund [R]. Working paper, University Library of Munich, Germany.
[74]Smith, A.1776. Of the expence of supporting the dignity of the sovereign, in Smith, A.,(Ed.), The wealth of nations, Methuen Publishing-Ltd, London, 160-161.
[75]Soares, M.B., Gagnon, A.S., Doherty, R.M.2012. Conceptual elements of climate change vulnerability assessments:a review [J]. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management,4(1):6-35.
[76]Springmann, M.2012. A look inwards:carbon tariffs versus internal improvements in emissions-trading systems [J]. Energy Economics,34:S228-S239.
[77]Springmann, M.2013. Carbon tariffs for financing clean development [J]. Climate Policy,13(1):20-42.
[78]Stadelmann, M., Roberts, J. T., Huq, S.2010. Baseline for trust:defining'new and additional'climate funding [R]. IIED briefing, International Institute for Environment and Development, London.
[79]Sterk, W., E. Ott, H., Watanabe, R., Wittneben, B.2007. The nairobi climate change summit (COP 12-MOP 2):taking a deep breathbefore negotiating Post-2012 targets?[J]. The Nairobi Climate Change Summit,(2):139:148.
[80]Tobey, J.A., Smets, H.1996. The Polluter-Pays Principle in the context of agriculture and the environment [J]. The World Economy,19(1):63-87.
[81]Tulkens, H., Schoumaker, F.1975. Stability analysis of an effluent charge and the 'polluters pay' principle [J]. Journal of Public Economics,4(3):245-269.
[82]TWN.2013. COP 19:Disappointment over long-term finance but gains on other finance decisions [N]. Geneva:29 Nov 2013 (Meena Raman). Available at: http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/climate/news/warsawO1/T WN_update27.pdf (accessed 8 March 2014)
[83]UNFCCC.2001. Scientific and methodological aspects of the proposal by Brazil, Progress report on the review of the scientific and methodological aspects of the proposal by Brazil, FCCC/SBSTA/2001/INF.2.
[84]UNFCCC.2008a. Investment and financial flows to address climate change. Available at:http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/financial_flows.pdf.
[85]UNFCCC.2008b. Views regarding the work programme of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the convention. FCCC/AWGL CA/2008/MISC.1.
[86]UNFCCC.2010. Report of the conference of the parties on its fifteenth Session, held in Copenhagen from 7 to 29 December 2009, Addendum, Part Two:Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its Fifteenth Session, FCCC/CP/2009/11/Add.1.
[87]UNFCCC.2011. Report of the conference of the parties serving as the meeting of the parties to the Kyoto Protocol on its sixth Session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 19 December 2010, Addendum, Part Two:Action taken by the Conference of the Parties Serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol at its Sixth Session, FCCC/KP/CMP/2010/12/Add.l"
[88]UNFCCC.2013. Warsaw international mechanism for loss and damage associated with climate change impacts.
[89]United Nation.2000. United Nations millennium declaration[R]. New York: United Nations. www.un.org/milleennium/declaration/ares552e.pdf
[90]United Nations.2013. The United Nations millennium development goals report 2013[R]. New York:United Nations.
[91]Van Kerkhoff, L., Ahmad, I.H., Pittock, J., Steffen, W.2011. Designing the Green Climate Fund:how to spend ＄100 billion sensibly [J]. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development,53 (3):18-31.
[92]van Vuuren, D.P., Isaac, M., Kundzewiczm, Z.W., Arnellm, N., Barkerm, T., Criqui, P., Berkhout, F., Hilderink, H., Hinkel, J., Hof, A., Kitous, A., Kram, T., Mechler, R.,Scrieciu, S.2011. The use of scenarios as the basis for combined assessment of climate change mitigation and adaptation [J]. Global Environmental Change,21:575-591.
[93]Verburg, R., Stehfest E., Woltjer, G, Eickhout, B.2009. The effect of agricultural trade liberalisation on land-use related greenhouse gas emissions [J]. Global Environmental Change,19(4):434-446.
[94]Vieweg, M., Rsch, A., Grieβhaber, L., Fuller, F., Mersmann, F., Fallasch, F., De Marez, L.2012. German fast start:lessons learned for long-term finance[R]. Working paper, Climate Analytics, Wuppertal Insitute, Germanwatch e.V. Berlin, German.
[95]Winkler, H., Brouns, B., Kartha, S.2006. Future mitigation commitments: differentiating among non-annex I countries [J]. Climate Policy,5:469-486.
[96]Wolf, S., Hinkel, J., Hallier, M., Bisaro, A., Lincke, D., Ionescu, C. and Klein, R.J.T.2013). Clarifying vulnerability definitions and assessments using formalization [J]. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management,5(1):54-70.
[97]World Bank.2010. Economics of adaptation to climate change study (eacc). a synthesis report. Final consultation draft[R]. Washington D.C.:World Bank.
[98]Young, H.P.1974, An axiomatization of Borda's rule [J]. Journal of Economic Theory,9 (1):43-52.
[99]Zahran, S., Kim, E., Chen, X., Lubell, M.2007. Ecological development and global climatechange:a cross-national study of Kyoto protocol ratification [J]. Society and Natural Resources,20:37-55
[100]白远,范军.国际经济合作理论与实务[M].北京：清华大学出版社.
[101]崔连标,范英,朱磊.2014.基于碳减排贡献原则的绿色气候基金的分配研究[J].中国人口·资源与环境,(1)：31-37.
[102]崔连标,朱磊,范英.2013.碳关税背景下中国主动减排策略可行性分析[J].管理科学,26(1)：101-111.
[103]方一平,秦大河,丁永建.2009.气候变化适应性研究综述—现状与趋向[J].干旱区研究,26(3)：299-305.
[104]郭红岩.2011.跨界损害损失分担基本理论问题研究[D]:[博士].武汉：中南政法大学,20-35.
[105]胡再勇.2012.对外援助领域的经济外交[J].国际经济合作,(7)：35-40.
[106]何霄嘉,马欣,李玉娥,王文涛,刘硕,高清竹.应对气候变化损失与危害国际机制对中国相关工作的启示[J].中国人口·资源与环境,24(5)：14-18.
[107]刘宇,张亚雄.2011.欧盟—韩国自贸区对我国经济和贸易的影响—基于动态GTAP模型[J].国际贸易问题,11：106-115.
[108]李小云,唐丽霞,武晋.2009.国际发展援助概论[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社.
[109]李威.2009.论中国在气候变化谈判中有关资金技术的博弈策略.绿叶, 10：86-91.
[110]纪晓婷,齐顾波.2013.论气候变化的适应[J].当代经济,13：71-73.
[111]王国庆.2012.国际官方发展援助分配研究[D]:[博士].北京：中国社会科学研究生院,61-90.
[112]徐薇.2011.气候变化融资问题研究[D]:[硕士].北京：中国社会科学院研究生院,19-43.
[113]张光南,陈坤铭,杨书菲2012. ECFA对两岸三地的经济、贸易和产业影响—基于全球贸易分析模型GTAP的分析[J].经济学(季刊),11(3)：873-892.
[114]赵立斌.2013.东盟区域一体化与参与全球生产网络—基于GTAP-Dyn模型的研究[J].国际贸易问题,9：55-167.
[2]Atwood, T.J., Drake, M.S., Myers, L.A.2010. Book-tax conformity, earnings persistence and the association between earnings and future cash flows [J]. Journal of Accounting and Economics,18:943-955.
[3]Baer, P.2013. The greenhouse development rights framework for global burden sharing:reflection on principles and prospects [J]. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:Climate Change,4:61-71.
[4]Basu, S.2007. The relevance of E-Commerce for taxation, in Basu, S., (Ed.), Global perspectives on E-Commerce taxation law, Ashgate, London,84-86.
[5]Beckman, J., Hertel, T.W., Tyne, W.2011. Validating energy-oriented CGE models [J]. Energy Economics,33(5):799-806.
[6]Benndorf, R., Federici, S.., Forner, C., Pena, N., Rametsteiner, E., Sanz, M.J., Somogyi, Z.2007. Including land use, land-use change and forestry in future climate change agreements:thinking outside the box [J].Environmental Science and Policy,10(4):283-294.
[7]Bird, N., Brown, J., Schalatek, L.2011. Design challenges for the Green Climate Fund[R]. Working paper climate finance policy brief No.4, Overseas Development Institute (ODI), London.
[8]Boden, T.A., Marland, G, Andres, R. J.2012. Global, regional, and national fossil fuel CO2 emissions [DB]. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy. Available at:http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/overview_2009.html. (Accessed 12 November 2013).
[9]Bohringer, C., Fischer, C., Rosendahl, K.E.2010. The global effects of subglobal climate policies [J]. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 10(2),1-35.
[10]Bosello, F., Carraro, C., De Cian, E.2010. Climate pPolicy and the optimal balance between mitigation, adaptation and unavoided damage [J]. Climate Change Economics,1(2):1-22.
[11]BP.2012. BP statistical review of world energy June 2012 [DB]. BP, London. Available:http://www.bp.com/sectionbodycopy.do?categoryId=7500&contentId =7068481. (Accessed 24 November 2013)
[12]Browne, M.A., Blanchfield, L.2013. United Nations regular budget contributions:members compared,1990-2010 [R]. Congressional Research Service. Available at:http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL30605.pdf (accessed 13 March 2014)
[13]Brown, J., Bird N., Schalatek, L.2010. Climate finance additionality:emerging definitions and their implications [R]. Climate Finance Policy Brief No.2, Overseas Development Institute, London.
[14]Buchner, B., Falconer, A., Herve-Mignucci, M., Trabacchi, C., Brinknian, M. 2011.The landscape of climate finance [R]. CPI report. Climate Policy Initiative, Venice.
[15]Burgess, J.2011. The ＄100 billion question:How do we secure a climate-resilient future for the world's children? [R]. Working paper, United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund, UK,9 May.
[16]Burniaux, J.M., Truong, T.P.2002. GTAP-E-an energy-environmental version of the GTAP model [R]. GTAP Technical Papers, No.16.
[17]Caron, J.2012. Estimating carbon leakage and the efficiency of border adjustments in general equilibrium-Does sectoral aggregation matter?[J]. Energy Economics,34, S111-S126.
[18]Carraro, C, Massetti, E.2012). Beyond Copenhagen:a realistic climate policy in a fragmented world [J].Climate Change,110:523-542.
[19]Chen, Z.M., Chen, G.Q.2011. An overview of energy consumption of the globalized world economy [J]. Energy Policy,39:5920-5928.
[20]Damodaran, A.2012. The economics of coping strategies and financing adaptation action in India's semi-arid ecosystems [J]. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management,4 (4):386-402.
[21]Dellink, R., den Elzen, M., Aiking, H., Bergsma, E., Berkhout, F., Dekker, T., Gupta, J.2009. Sharing the burden of financing adaptation to climate change [J]. Global Environment Change,19:411-421.
[22]den Elzen, M.G.J., Schaeffer, M., Lucas, P.L.2005). Differentiating future commitments on the basis of countries' relative historical responsibility for climate change:uncertainties in the' Brazilian Proposal'in the context of a policy implementation [J]. Climatic Change,71 (3):277-301.
[23]Donner, D.S., Kandlikar, M., Zerriffi, H.2011. Preparing to manage climate change financing [J]. Science,334:908-909.
[24]Dummett, M.1998. The Borda count and agenda manipulation [J]. Social Choice Welfare,15:289-296.
[25]Dutschke, M., Michaelowa, A.2006. Development assistance and the CDM-how to interpret' financial additionality'[J]. Environment and Development Economics,11:235-46.
[26]European Commission.2009. Commission staff working document accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Stepping up international climate finance:A European blueprint for the Copenhagen deal{COM(2009) 475} [R]. Available at: http://www.eumonitor.n1/9353000/1/j9vvik7mlc3gyxp/vi8j7x54tewi. (accessed 15 March 2014)
[27]Fishman, Y., Becker, N., Shechter, M.2012. The Polluter Pays Principle as a policy tool in an externality model for nitrogen fertilizer pollution [J]. Water Policy,14:1-6.
[28]Fiissel, H.M.2010. How inequitable is the global distribution of responsibility, capability, and vulnerability to climate change:A comprehensive indicator-based assessment [J]. Global Environmental Change,20:597-611.
[29]Grasso, M.2010.An ethical approach to climate adaptation finance [J]. Global Environmental Change,20:74-81.
[30]Grubb, M.2011. International climate finance from border carbon cost leveling [J]. Climate Policy, 11(3):1050-1057.
[31]Harmeling, S., Eckstein, D. (2012). Global Climate Risk Index 2013-who suffers most from extreme weather events? Weather-related loss events in 2011 and 1992 to 2011[R]. German Watch, Berlin, Germany.
[32]Hertwich, E.G., Peters, G.P.2009. Carbon footprint of nations:a global, trade-linked analysis [J]. Environmental science & technology,43 (16): 6414-6420.
[33]Hof, A.F, den Elzen, M.G.J., Mendoza Beltran, A.2011). Predictability, equitability and adequacy of post-2012 international climate finance proposals [J]. Environmental Science and Policy,14:615-627.
[34]Hohne, N., den Elzen, M., Escalante, D.2014. Regional GHG reduction targets based on effort sharing:a comparison of studies [J]. Climate Policy, 14(1):122-147.
[35]Holtzman, Y.2007. Challenges in achieving transparency, simplicity and administering of the United States tax code [J]. Journal of Management Development,26(5):418-427.
[36]Hulme, M., O'Neill, S.J., Dessai S.2011. Is weather event attribution necessary for adaptation funding?[J]. Science,334:764-765
[37]IEA.2012. CO2 Emissions from fuel combustion (2012 Edition) [DB]. http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/2012/co2-emissions-from-fuel-combustion-20 12-edition (accessed 15 December 2012).
[38]IEO.2009. World energy outlook 2009[R]. International Energy Agency, Paris and Washington, DC.
[39]Janjua, S., Thomas, I. and McEvoy, D.2010). Framing climate change adaptation learning and action:the case of Lahore, Pakistan [J]. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management,2 (3):281-296.
[40]Jones, A., Wolosin, M., Fransen, T., Nakhooda, S.2013. The U.S. Contribution to Fast-Start Finance[R]. Working Paper, World Resources Institute, Washington DC, and Overseas Development Institute, London.
[41]Lakatos, C., Walmsley, T.2012. Investment creation and diversion effects of the ASEAN-China free trade agreement [J]. Economic Modelling,29(3):766-779.
[42]Lanzi E, Chateau J, Dellink R.2012. Alternative approaches for leveling carbon prices in a world with fragmented carbon markets [J]. Energy Economics, 34:S240-S250.
[43]Lattanzio, R.K.2013. International climate change financing:the Green Climate Fund (GCF) [R]. Congressional Research Service. Available at: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41889.pdf (accessed 13 March 2014)
[44]Leahy, S.2012. The big fight in Doha is over climate finance [N]. Available at: http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/12/the-big-fight-in-doha-is-over-climate-finance/ (accessed 3 December 2013).
[45]Maraseni, T.N.2013. Selecting a CDM investor in China:a critical analysis. Energy Policy,53:484-489.
[46]Mathews, T.2014. Historical trends in the degree of federal income tax progressivity in the United States [J]. The Social Science Journal,51:90-99.
[47]Mattoo, A., Subramanian, A.2012. Equity in climate change:An analytical review [J]. World Development,40(6):1083-1097.
[48]McGee, R.W.1998. Is the ability to pay principle ethically bankrupt?[J]. Journal of Accounting, Ethics & Public Policy, 1(3):503-511.
[49]McKibbin, W.J.2011. Comparing climate commitments:a model-based analysis of the Copenhagen Accord [J]. Climate Change Economics,2(2):79-103.
[50]Muller, B.1999. Justice in global warming negotiations. How to obtain a procedurally fair compromise[R]. Working paper, Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, London.
[51]Muller, B.2001. Varieties of distributive justice in climate change [J]. Climate Change,48:273-288.
[52]Muller, B.2013.The allocation of (adaptation) resources:lessons from fiscal transfer mechanisms[R]. Working paper, the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, London.
[53]Muller, B., Hohne, N., Ellermann, C.2009. Differentiating (historic) responsibilities for climate change [J]. Climate Policy,9:593-611.
[54]Muller, B., Sharma, A., Gomez-Echeverri, L., Rook, D. P., Chandani, A.2010. The reformed rinancial mechanism of the UNFCCC. part II. The question of oversight. Post Copenhagen synthesis report. OIES EV 52[R].Oxford:Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.
[55]Narain, U., Margulis, S., Essam, T.2011. Estimating costs of adaptation to climate change [J]. Climate Policy, 11(3):1001-1019.
[56]Nakhooda, S., Fransen, T., Moe, T., Kallbekken, S., Caravani, A.2013a The Norwegian Fast-Start Finance contribution [R]. Working Paper, World Resources Institute, Washington DC, and Overseas Development Institute, London.
[57]Nakhooda, S., Fransen, T., Kuramochi, T., Caravani, A., Prizzon, A., Shimizu, N., Tilley, H., Halimanjaya, A., Welham, B.2013b. Mobilising International climate finance:lessons from the Fast-Start Finance period [R]. Working Paper, Overseas Development Institute, London and The World Resources Institute, Washington DC and The Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Japan.
[58]Nakhooda, S., Fransen, T., Wenzel, A., Caravani, A., Stasio, K.2012. The UK fast start finance contribution[R]. Working Paper, World Resources Institute, Washington DC, and Overseas Development Institute, London.
[59]Oberheitmann, A.2010. A new post-Kyoto climate regime based on per-capita cumulative C02-emission rights—rationale, architecture and quantitative assessment of the implication for the CO2-emissions from China, India and the Annex-I countries by 2050[J]. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change,15:137-168.
[60JODI.2010. Climate finance additionality:emerging definitions and their implications[R]. Climate Finance Policy Brief No.2, the Overseas Development Institute, London.
[61]ODI.2013.10 things to know about climate finance in 2013[EB]. The Overseas Development Institute, London.
[62]Oxfam International.2007. Adapting to climate change:what's needed in poor countries, and who should pay[R]. Oxfam Briefing Paper 104, Oxfam International, Oxford,29 May.
[63]Parry, M., Arnell, N., Berry, P., Dodman, D., Fankhauser, S., Hope, C., Kovats, S., Nicholls, R.2009.Assessing the costs of adaptation to climate change. A review of the UNFCCC and other recent estimates [R]. London:International Institute for Environment and Development.
[64]Peters, G.P., Hertwich, E.G.2008. CO2 embodied in international trade with implications for global climate policy [J]. Environmental Science and Technology,42:1401-1407.
[65]Porcano, T.M.1984. Distributive justice and tax policy [J]. The Accounting Review,59(4):619-636.
[66]Raman, M.2011. Developing countries submit document for Green Fund establishment [N]. Third World Network.
[67]Reilly, B.2002. Social choice in the south seas:electoral innovation and the Borda Count in the Pacific Island Countries [J]. International Political Science Review,23(4):355-372.
[68]Richardson, G.2007). The influence of culture on tax systems internationally:a theoretical and empirical analysis [J]. Journal of International Accounting Research,6 (1):57-79.
[69]Rosa, L.P., Ribeiro, S.K., Muylaert, M.S., de Campos, C.P.2004. Comments on the Brazilian proposal and contributions to global temperature increase with different climate responses-CO2 emissions due to fossil fuels, CO2 emissions due to land use changes [J]. Energy Policy,32(13):1499-1510.
[70]Salehezadeh, Z., Henneberry, S.R.2002. The economic impacts of trade liberalization and factor mobility:the case of the Philippines [J]. Journal of Policy Modeling,21(5):483-486.
[71]Sarker, M.A.R., Alam, K. and Gow, J.2009. Assessing the determinants of rice farmers'adaptation strategies to climate change in Bangladesh [J]. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management,5 (4):382-403.
[72]Schiissler, R.2011.Climate justice:a question of historic responsibility?[J]. Journal of Global Ethics,7(3):261-278.
[73]Silverstein, D.N.2013. A globally harmonized carbon price framework for financing the Green Climate Fund [R]. Working paper, University Library of Munich, Germany.
[74]Smith, A.1776. Of the expence of supporting the dignity of the sovereign, in Smith, A.,(Ed.), The wealth of nations, Methuen Publishing-Ltd, London, 160-161.
[75]Soares, M.B., Gagnon, A.S., Doherty, R.M.2012. Conceptual elements of climate change vulnerability assessments:a review [J]. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management,4(1):6-35.
[76]Springmann, M.2012. A look inwards:carbon tariffs versus internal improvements in emissions-trading systems [J]. Energy Economics,34:S228-S239.
[77]Springmann, M.2013. Carbon tariffs for financing clean development [J]. Climate Policy,13(1):20-42.
[78]Stadelmann, M., Roberts, J. T., Huq, S.2010. Baseline for trust:defining'new and additional'climate funding [R]. IIED briefing, International Institute for Environment and Development, London.
[79]Sterk, W., E. Ott, H., Watanabe, R., Wittneben, B.2007. The nairobi climate change summit (COP 12-MOP 2):taking a deep breathbefore negotiating Post-2012 targets?[J]. The Nairobi Climate Change Summit,(2):139:148.
[80]Tobey, J.A., Smets, H.1996. The Polluter-Pays Principle in the context of agriculture and the environment [J]. The World Economy,19(1):63-87.
[81]Tulkens, H., Schoumaker, F.1975. Stability analysis of an effluent charge and the 'polluters pay' principle [J]. Journal of Public Economics,4(3):245-269.
[82]TWN.2013. COP 19:Disappointment over long-term finance but gains on other finance decisions [N]. Geneva:29 Nov 2013 (Meena Raman). Available at: http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/climate/news/warsawO1/T WN_update27.pdf (accessed 8 March 2014)
[83]UNFCCC.2001. Scientific and methodological aspects of the proposal by Brazil, Progress report on the review of the scientific and methodological aspects of the proposal by Brazil, FCCC/SBSTA/2001/INF.2.
[84]UNFCCC.2008a. Investment and financial flows to address climate change. Available at:http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/financial_flows.pdf.
[85]UNFCCC.2008b. Views regarding the work programme of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the convention. FCCC/AWGL CA/2008/MISC.1.
[86]UNFCCC.2010. Report of the conference of the parties on its fifteenth Session, held in Copenhagen from 7 to 29 December 2009, Addendum, Part Two:Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its Fifteenth Session, FCCC/CP/2009/11/Add.1.
[87]UNFCCC.2011. Report of the conference of the parties serving as the meeting of the parties to the Kyoto Protocol on its sixth Session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 19 December 2010, Addendum, Part Two:Action taken by the Conference of the Parties Serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol at its Sixth Session, FCCC/KP/CMP/2010/12/Add.l"
[88]UNFCCC.2013. Warsaw international mechanism for loss and damage associated with climate change impacts.
[89]United Nation.2000. United Nations millennium declaration[R]. New York: United Nations. www.un.org/milleennium/declaration/ares552e.pdf
[90]United Nations.2013. The United Nations millennium development goals report 2013[R]. New York:United Nations.
[91]Van Kerkhoff, L., Ahmad, I.H., Pittock, J., Steffen, W.2011. Designing the Green Climate Fund:how to spend ＄100 billion sensibly [J]. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development,53 (3):18-31.
[92]van Vuuren, D.P., Isaac, M., Kundzewiczm, Z.W., Arnellm, N., Barkerm, T., Criqui, P., Berkhout, F., Hilderink, H., Hinkel, J., Hof, A., Kitous, A., Kram, T., Mechler, R.,Scrieciu, S.2011. The use of scenarios as the basis for combined assessment of climate change mitigation and adaptation [J]. Global Environmental Change,21:575-591.
[93]Verburg, R., Stehfest E., Woltjer, G, Eickhout, B.2009. The effect of agricultural trade liberalisation on land-use related greenhouse gas emissions [J]. Global Environmental Change,19(4):434-446.
[94]Vieweg, M., Rsch, A., Grieβhaber, L., Fuller, F., Mersmann, F., Fallasch, F., De Marez, L.2012. German fast start:lessons learned for long-term finance[R]. Working paper, Climate Analytics, Wuppertal Insitute, Germanwatch e.V. Berlin, German.
[95]Winkler, H., Brouns, B., Kartha, S.2006. Future mitigation commitments: differentiating among non-annex I countries [J]. Climate Policy,5:469-486.
[96]Wolf, S., Hinkel, J., Hallier, M., Bisaro, A., Lincke, D., Ionescu, C. and Klein, R.J.T.2013). Clarifying vulnerability definitions and assessments using formalization [J]. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management,5(1):54-70.
[97]World Bank.2010. Economics of adaptation to climate change study (eacc). a synthesis report. Final consultation draft[R]. Washington D.C.:World Bank.
[98]Young, H.P.1974, An axiomatization of Borda's rule [J]. Journal of Economic Theory,9 (1):43-52.
[99]Zahran, S., Kim, E., Chen, X., Lubell, M.2007. Ecological development and global climatechange:a cross-national study of Kyoto protocol ratification [J]. Society and Natural Resources,20:37-55
[100]白远,范军.国际经济合作理论与实务[M].北京：清华大学出版社.
[101]崔连标,范英,朱磊.2014.基于碳减排贡献原则的绿色气候基金的分配研究[J].中国人口·资源与环境,(1)：31-37.
[102]崔连标,朱磊,范英.2013.碳关税背景下中国主动减排策略可行性分析[J].管理科学,26(1)：101-111.
[103]方一平,秦大河,丁永建.2009.气候变化适应性研究综述—现状与趋向[J].干旱区研究,26(3)：299-305.
[104]郭红岩.2011.跨界损害损失分担基本理论问题研究[D]:[博士].武汉：中南政法大学,20-35.
[105]胡再勇.2012.对外援助领域的经济外交[J].国际经济合作,(7)：35-40.
[106]何霄嘉,马欣,李玉娥,王文涛,刘硕,高清竹.应对气候变化损失与危害国际机制对中国相关工作的启示[J].中国人口·资源与环境,24(5)：14-18.
[107]刘宇,张亚雄.2011.欧盟—韩国自贸区对我国经济和贸易的影响—基于动态GTAP模型[J].国际贸易问题,11：106-115.
[108]李小云,唐丽霞,武晋.2009.国际发展援助概论[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社.
[109]李威.2009.论中国在气候变化谈判中有关资金技术的博弈策略.绿叶, 10：86-91.
[110]纪晓婷,齐顾波.2013.论气候变化的适应[J].当代经济,13：71-73.
[111]王国庆.2012.国际官方发展援助分配研究[D]:[博士].北京：中国社会科学研究生院,61-90.
[112]徐薇.2011.气候变化融资问题研究[D]:[硕士].北京：中国社会科学院研究生院,19-43.
[113]张光南,陈坤铭,杨书菲2012. ECFA对两岸三地的经济、贸易和产业影响—基于全球贸易分析模型GTAP的分析[J].经济学(季刊),11(3)：873-892.
[114]赵立斌.2013.东盟区域一体化与参与全球生产网络—基于GTAP-Dyn模型的研究[J].国际贸易问题,9：55-167.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |