Effort sharing in ambitious, global climate change mitigation scenarios

The post-2012 climate policy framework needs a global commitment to deep greenhouse gas emission cuts. This paper analyzes reaching ambitious emission targets up to 2050, either [hyphen (true graphic)]10% or [hyphen (true graphic)]50% from 1990 levels, and how the economic burden from mitigation efforts could be equitably shared between countries. The scenarios indicate a large low-cost mitigation potential in electricity and industry, while reaching low emission levels in international transportation and agricultural emissions might prove difficult. The two effort sharing approaches, Triptych and Multistage, were compared in terms of equitability and coherence. Both approaches produced an equitable cost distribution between countries, with least developed countries having negative or low costs and more developed countries having higher costs. There is, however, no definitive solution on how the costs should be balanced equitably between countries. Triptych seems to be yet more coherent than other approaches, as it can better accommodate national circumstances. Last, challenges and possible hindrances to effective mitigation and equitable effort sharing are presented. The findings underline the significance of assumptions behind effort sharing on mitigation potentials and current emissions, the challenge of sharing the effort with uncertain future allowance prices and how inefficient markets might undermine the efficiency of a cap-and-trade system.

[1]  Jean-Philippe Waaub,et al.  Equity in international greenhouse gases abatement scenarios: A multicriteria approach , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[2]  N. Nakicenovic,et al.  Climate change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Summary for Policymakers. , 2007 .

[3]  S. Syri,et al.  Global energy and emissions scenarios for effective climate change mitigation - Modelling study with the ETSAP/TIAM model , 2010 .

[4]  Bas Eickhout,et al.  Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at low levels: an assessment of reduction strategies and costs , 2007 .

[5]  Andrew Macintosh,et al.  International aviation emissions to 2025: Can emissions be stabilised without restricting demand? , 2008, Energy Policy.

[6]  K. Riahi,et al.  The role of non-CO2 greenhouse gases in climate change mitigation: Long-term scenarios for the 21st century , 2006 .

[7]  Michel G.J. den Elzen,et al.  Long-term reduction potential of non-CO2 greenhouse gases , 2007 .

[8]  G. Peters From production-based to consumption-based national emission inventories , 2008 .

[9]  R. Beach,et al.  Methane and Nitrous Oxide Mitigation in Agriculture , 2006 .

[10]  Maryse Labriet,et al.  ETSAP-TIAM: the TIMES integrated assessment model Part I: Model structure , 2008, Comput. Manag. Sci..

[11]  D. Vuuren,et al.  Regional abatement action and costs under allocation schemes for emission allowances for achieving low CO2-equivalent concentrations , 2008 .

[12]  L. Schrattenholzer,et al.  Equity implications of two burden-sharing rules for stabilizing greenhouse-gas concentrations , 2006 .

[13]  N. H. Ravindranath,et al.  2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories , 2006 .

[14]  Kornelis Blok,et al.  A Triptych sectoral approach to burden differentiation; GHG emissions in the European bubble , 1998 .

[15]  H. Winkler,et al.  Differentiation of countries’ future commitments in a post-2012 climate regime: An assessment of the “South–North Dialogue” Proposal , 2007 .

[16]  N. Höhne,et al.  The Triptych approach revisited: A staged sectoral approach for climate mitigation , 2008 .

[17]  Global climate change and the equity–efficiency puzzle , 2003 .

[18]  Kristian Lindgren,et al.  Allocation of CO2 emission permits - economic incentives for emission reductions in developing countries. , 2006 .

[19]  Michel G.J. den Elzen,et al.  Abatement costs of post-Kyoto climate regimes , 2005 .

[20]  N. Nakicenovic,et al.  Scenarios of long-term socio-economic and environmental development under climate stabilization , 2007 .

[21]  Heinz Welsch,et al.  Contraction and Convergence of carbon emissions: an intertemporal multi-region CGE analysis , 2004 .

[22]  H. Holttinen,et al.  Global energy and emissions scenarios for effective climate change mitigation - Deterministic and stochastic scenarios with the TIAM model , 2008 .

[23]  H. Groenenberg,et al.  Differentiating commitments world wide: global differentiation of GHG emissions reductions based on the Triptych approach—a preliminary assessment , 2001 .

[24]  Richard Loulou,et al.  ETSAP-TIAM: the TIMES integrated assessment model. part II: mathematical formulation , 2008, Comput. Manag. Sci..

[25]  Lasse Ringius,et al.  Can multi-criteria rules fairly distribute climate burdens?: OECD results from three burden sharing rules , 1998 .

[26]  J. Edmonds,et al.  Stabilizing CO2 concentrations with incomplete international cooperation , 2008 .

[27]  P. Russ,et al.  Analysis of Post-2012 Climate Policy Scenarios with Limited Participation , 2005 .

[28]  Alexei G. Sankovski,et al.  Special report on emissions scenarios , 2000 .

[29]  P. Lucas,et al.  Multi-Stage: A Rule-Based Evolution of Future Commitments under the Climate Change Convention , 2006 .

[30]  G. Klepper,et al.  Distribution matters: Taxes vs. emissions trading in post Kyoto climate regimes , 2007 .