TY - JOUR
T1 - Including adaptation costs and climate change damages in evaluating post-2012 burden-sharing regimes
AU - Hof, Andries F.
AU - den Elzen, Michel G J
AU - van Vuuren, Detlef P.
PY - 2010/1
Y1 - 2010/1
N2 - Many studies have been published to evaluate the consequences of different post-2012 emission allocation regimes on regional mitigation costs. This paper goes one step further and evaluates not only mitigation costs, but also adaptation costs and climate change damages. Three post-2012 emission allocation regimes (Contraction & Convergence, Multistage and Common but differentiated convergence) and two climate targets (2°C and 3°C above the pre-industrial level) are considered. This explorative analysis shows that including these other cost categories could lead to different perspectives on the outcomes of allocation regimes. Up to 2050, the poorest regions have negative mitigation costs under all allocation regimes considered, as they benefit from emission trading. However, these regions also suffer from the most severe climate impacts. As such, the financial flows due to emission trading from developed to developing countries created under these allocation regimes could also be interpreted as compensation of climate change damages and adaptation costs. In the longer run, the sum of climate change damages, adaptation costs and mitigation costs are the highest in the poorest regions of Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, for both climate targets and practically all emission allocation regimes.
AB - Many studies have been published to evaluate the consequences of different post-2012 emission allocation regimes on regional mitigation costs. This paper goes one step further and evaluates not only mitigation costs, but also adaptation costs and climate change damages. Three post-2012 emission allocation regimes (Contraction & Convergence, Multistage and Common but differentiated convergence) and two climate targets (2°C and 3°C above the pre-industrial level) are considered. This explorative analysis shows that including these other cost categories could lead to different perspectives on the outcomes of allocation regimes. Up to 2050, the poorest regions have negative mitigation costs under all allocation regimes considered, as they benefit from emission trading. However, these regions also suffer from the most severe climate impacts. As such, the financial flows due to emission trading from developed to developing countries created under these allocation regimes could also be interpreted as compensation of climate change damages and adaptation costs. In the longer run, the sum of climate change damages, adaptation costs and mitigation costs are the highest in the poorest regions of Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, for both climate targets and practically all emission allocation regimes.
KW - Adaptation
KW - Burden-sharing
KW - Climate change
KW - Climate policy
KW - Emission allocation
KW - Integrated assessment
KW - Mitigation
KW - Post-Kyoto
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=73649102376&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s11027-009-9201-x
DO - 10.1007/s11027-009-9201-x
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:73649102376
SN - 1381-2386
VL - 15
SP - 19
EP - 40
JO - Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change
JF - Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change
IS - 1
ER -