Facebook LinkedIn Instagram Twitter
Shop
Search
Begin New Search
Proceed to Checkout

Search Results for All:
(Showing results 1 to 4 of 4)



CO2 Emissions Limits: Economic Adjustments and the Distribution of Burdens

Henry D. Jacoby, Richard S. Eckaus, A. Denny Ellerman, Ronald G. Prinn, David M. Reiner and Zili Yang

Year: 1997
Volume: Volume18
Number: Number 3
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol18-No3-2
View Abstract

Abstract:
Policies under consideration within the Climate Convention would impose CO2 controls on only a subset of nations. A model of economic growth and emissions, coupled to an analysis of the climate system, is used to explore the consequences of a sample proposal of this type. The results show how economic burdens are likely to be distributed among nations, how carbon "leakage" may counteract the reductions attained, and how policy costs may be influenced by emissions trading. We explore the sensitivity of results to uncertainty in key underlying assumptions, including the influence on economic impacts and on the policy contribution to long-term climate goals.



Analysis of Post-Kyoto Scenarios: The Asian-Pacific Integrated Model

Mikiko Kainuma, Yuzuru Matsuoka and Tsuneyuki Morita

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-9
View Abstract

Abstract:
The AIM/top-down model is a recursive general equilibrium model used to analyze the post-Kyoto scenarios presented by EMF16. Differences among scenarios mainly arise from the setting of emission trading. Japan's marginal cost is the highest among the Annex I countries except New Zealand, where a relatively high emission reduction is necessary, while the highest GDP loss Is observed in the USA in 2010 in the no trading case. The marginal costs are much less in the global trading case. The countries of the former Soviet Union sell emission rights and the USA buys the largest amount of them. Emission reductions by trading will account for a large part of the total emission reductions if there is no restriction on trading. The GDP gain of the former Soviet Union is the largest in 2010 in the trading cases. The GDP change in Middle East Asia is negative, and reaches the highest level in the no trading case. Carbon leakage is particularly observed in the no trading case.



Coal Subsidies and Global Carbon Emissions

Miles K. Light

Year: 1999
Volume: Volume20
Number: Number 4
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol20-No4-5
View Abstract

Abstract:
It has been suggested that eliminating coal production subsidies could substantially reduce global carbon emissions. This paper finds otherwise. Using a dynamic model of the international coal market, the paper investigates the consequences of subsidy elimination in a model incorporating sector specific capital constraints. In the short-run, following elimination of subsidies, producers with excess capacity divert domestic production into the export market, softening price increases. Over time, low cost exporters gain market share from the swing supplier, which further attenuates the market response to subsidy elimination. Given this market structure, production subsidy elimination in Europe and Japan may reduce world steam coal demand by as little as 0.5%, and global CO2 emissions by only 0.2



Methane and Nitrous Oxide Mitigation in Agriculture

Benjamin J. DeAngelo, Francisco C. de la Chesnaye, Robert H. Beach, Allan Sommer and Brian C. Murray 

Year: 2006
Volume: Multi-Greenhouse Gas Mitigation and Climate Policy
Number: Special Issue #3
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-VolSI2006-NoSI3-5
View Abstract

Abstract:
This analysis presents cost estimates for mitigating nitrous oxide from cropland soils, and methane from livestock enteric fermentation, manure management and rice cultivation for major world regions. Total estimated global mitigation potential is approximately 64 MtCeq. in 2010 at negative or zero costs, 141 MtCeq. at $200/TCeq., and up to 168 MtCeq. at higher costs. Costs for individual options range from negative to positive in nearly every region, depending on emission, yield, input, labor, capital cost, and outside revenue effects. Future assessment requires improved accounting for multiple greenhouse gas effects, heterogeneity of emissions and yields, baseline management conditions, identification of options that generate farmer and societal benefits, adoption feasibility, and commodity market effects into mitigation decisions.





Begin New Search
Proceed to Checkout

 





function toggleAbstract(id) { alert(id); }