Article

Marginal abatement costs of CO2 emission reductions, geographical flexibility and concrete ceilings: an assessment using the POLES model

Institut d'Economie et de Politique de l'Energie, Université Pierre Mendès France, BP 47 38040 Grenoble Cedex 9, France
Energy Policy 01/1999; DOI: 10.1016/S0301-4215(99)00051-8
Source: RePEc

ABSTRACT The Kyoto Protocol envisage the setting-up of flexibility mechanisms allowing Annex B countries to fulfil their commitments to reducing greenhouse gases with respect for the principle of economic efficiency. The current negotiations relate in particular to the possibility of setting up a system of tradable emissions permits for Annex B countries and also of introducing “ceilings” to trade. This paper analyses the stakes and economic potential of adopting this instrument, both for those countries that made commitments in Kyoto and for developing countries. It is based on a formal approach that allows for a consistent framework of analysis. The emission permit market, is, in fact, simulated on the basis of a reference scenario and of marginal abatement cost curves and estimated by the POLES model; after analysing these marginal abatement cost curves and comparing them with those produced by other models, we explore two different configurations for a competitive market: a market limited to the Annex B countries and a world market. The results produced by the model show that widening the market to include developing countries is more effective than the Annex B market solution; it reduces the cost of implementing Kyoto for OECD countries and at the same time allows the countries of the South to benefit from selling the permits. This research also shows that introducing restrictions on exchanges for Annex B countries could have a counter-productive redistribution effect, with the ethical argument that underlies that particular measure.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
93 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper proposes an allocation scheme based on cumulative emission per capita to achieve a globally equitable carbon emission space. Within this scheme, each country has an equal cumulative emission per capita during the considered time period, and their annual emission per capita would reach the same level in the converged year. It is quantified by assuming a quadratic annual emission per capita for each country in the allocation interval. The country-specific emission trajectories are provided based on long-term targets, and then adjusted to strictly follow the global emission pathway. We analyze the peak years and associated abatement costs with different starting years under this scheme. Compared with three other schemes, this new allocation scheme considers historical emissions and future needs for developed and developing countries simultaneously.
    Applied Energy 01/2014; 113:1810-1818. · 5.26 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the long-term stabilization targets of greenhouse gases concentrations, various carbon emission rights allocation schemes have been proposed. To compare and evaluate them, the most essential is the equityefficiency tradeoff. This paper measures the equity and the efficiency in the global rather than the narrower national perspective. Specifically, the equity of the first allocation is quantified by the carbon Gini coefficient defined by per capita cumulative emission, and the economic efficiency to accomplish obligations is described with the discounted global abatement costs. Under 20 key allocation schemes, the numerical comparison on the equity-efficiency tradeoff side is carried out through the Equitable Access to Sustainable Development model. Our studies indicate that the equity and the efficiency of future emission space allocation approximately show a three-stage relationship.
    Energy 05/2014; · 4.16 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An equitable burden-sharing framework is essential for the successful collective efforts to cope with climate change. Various carbon emission rights allocation schemes have been proposed in the international community. This paper focuses on the comparison among different schemes with the Equitable Access to Sustainable Development (EASD) model. The EASD model consists of four modules: a global target module, an allocation module, a carbon equity module and an abatement costs module. EASD integrates 20 key allocation schemes. For a selected scheme, country-specific allowance trajectories are provided in accordance with the global emission pathway. Then the carbon equity after allocation is measured by carbon Gini coefficient defined by per capita cumulative emission from the global rather than the narrower national perspective. A reduction tradeoff relationship is also performed among country groups. With marginal abatement cost curves, regional abatement costs are further analyzed. Our studies show that EASD would be a powerful policy-tool to profoundly compare and assess emission rights allocation schemes.
    Applied Energy 03/2014; · 5.26 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
99 Downloads
Available from
May 31, 2014