Abatement costs of post-Kyoto climate regimes

Michel den Elzen*, Paul Lucas, Detlef van Vuuren

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

This article analyses the abatement costs of three post-Kyoto regimes for differentiating commitments compatible with stabilising atmospheric greenhouse gases concentrations at 550 ppmv CO2 equivalent in 2100. The three regimes explored are: (1) the Multi-Stage approach assumes a gradual increase in the number of Parties involved who are adopting either emission intensity or reductions targets; (2) the Brazilian Proposal approach, i.e. the allocation or reductions based on countries' contribution to temperature increase; (3) Contraction & Convergence, with full participation in convergence of per capita emission allowances. In 2050, the global costs increase up to about 1% of the world GDP, ranging from 0.5% to 1.5%, depending on baseline scenario and marginal abatement costs. Four groups of regions can be identified on the basis of similar costs (expressed as the percentage of GDP). These are: (1) OECD regions with average costs; (2) FSU, the Middle East and Latin America with high costs; (3) South-East Asia and East Asia (incl. China) with low costs; and (4) South Asia (incl. India) and Africa with net gains from emissions trading for most regimes. The Brazilian Proposal approach gives the highest costs for groups 1 and 2. The distribution of costs for the Contraction & Convergence approach highly depends on the convergence year. The Multi-Stage approach and Contraction & Convergence (convergence year 2050) seem to result in relatively the most even distribution of costs amongst all Parties.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2138-2151
Number of pages14
JournalEnergy Policy
Volume33
Issue number16
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2005
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Abatement costs
  • Emissions trading
  • Future commitments

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Abatement costs of post-Kyoto climate regimes'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this