Search

Begin New Search
Proceed to Checkout

Search Results for All:
(Showing results 1 to 3 of 3)



Kyoto, Efficiency, and Cost-Effectiveness: Applications of FUND

Richard S.J. Tol

Year: 1999
Volume: Volume 20
Number: Special Issue - The Cost of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol20-NoSI-6
View Abstract

Abstract:
In this paper various emission reduction scenarios are evaluated with FUND-the Climate Framework for Uncertainty, Negotiation, and Distribution model. The aim is to help international negotiators improve upon the Kyoto Protocol. International cooperation in greenhouse gas emission reduction is important, and the more of it the better. The emission reduction targets as agreed in the Kyoto Protocol are irreconcilable with economic rationality. If the targets nevertheless need to be met, it is better to start emission reduction sooner than later in order to minimise costs. Methane emission reduction may be an important instrument to reduce costs.



The Marginal Costs of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Richard S. J. Tol

Year: 1999
Volume: Volume20
Number: Number 1
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol20-No1-4
View Abstract

Abstract:
Estimates of the marginal costs of greenhouse gas emissions are an important input to the decision how much society would want to spend on greenhouse gas emission reduction. Marginal cost estimates in the literature range between $5 and $25 per tonne of carbon. Using similar assumptions, the FUND model finds marginal costs of $9 23/tC, depending on the discount rate. If the aggregation of impacts over countries accounts for inequalities in income of 3. Marginal costs per region are an order of magnitude smaller than global marginal costs. The ratios between the marginal costs of CO2 and those of CH4 and N2O are roughly equal to the global warming potentials of these gases. The uncertainty about the marginal costs is large and right-skewed. The expected value of the marginal costs lies about 35% above the best guess, the 95-percentile about 250%.



Multi-Gas Emission Reduction for Climate Change Policy: An Application of Fund

Richard S.J. Tol

Year: 2006
Volume: Multi-Greenhouse Gas Mitigation and Climate Policy
Number: Special Issue #3
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-VolSI2006-NoSI3-11
View Abstract

Abstract:
The costs of greenhouse gas emission reduction with abatement of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are investigated using the FUND model. The central policy scenario keeps anthropogenic radiative forcing below 4.5 Wm2. If COemission reduction were the only possibility to meet this target, 2 the net present value of consumption losses would be $45 trillion; with abatement of the other gases added, costs fall to $33 trillion. The bulk of these costs savings can be ascribed to reductions of nitrous oxide. Because nitrous oxide emission reduction is so much more important than methane emission reduction, the choice of equivalence metric between the greenhouse gases does not matter much. Sensitivity analyses show that the shape of the cost curves for CH4 and N2O emission reductions matter, and that the inclusion of sulphate aerosols makes policy targets substantially harder to achieve. The costs of emission reduction vary greatly with the choice of stabilisation target. A target of 4.5 Wm-2 is not justified by our current knowledge of the damage costs of climate change.





Begin New Search
Proceed to Checkout

 

© 2020 International Association for Energy Economics | Privacy Policy | Return Policy