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

Search Results for All:
(Showing results 1 to 8 of 8)



Overview of EMF-21: Multigas Mitigation and Climate Policy

John P. Weyant, Francisco C. de la Chesnaye, and Geoff J. Blanford

Year: 2006
Volume: Multi-Greenhouse Gas Mitigation and Climate Policy
Number: Special Issue #3
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-VolSI2006-NoSI3-1
View Abstract

Abstract:
Overview of EMF-21: Multigas Mitigation and Climate Policy. By John P. Weyant*, Francisco C. de la Chesnaye**, and Geoff J. Blanford***



Flexible Multi-gas Climate Policies

Jesper Jensen

Year: 2006
Volume: Multi-Greenhouse Gas Mitigation and Climate Policy
Number: Special Issue #3
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-VolSI2006-NoSI3-8
View Abstract

Abstract:
I analyse the costs of policies aimed at stabilising global climate change. I show that abatement of all major greenhouse gases is important to the costs of climate policies and that flexible reduction of methane and other non-CO2 gases may reduce costs significantly. The non-CO2 gases offer many low-cost abatement options and this reduces the need for abatement of CO2 to stabilise climate change. Multi-gas flexibility may be important if climate policies reflect not only long-term stabilisation, but also the rate at which the climate changes, as the latter may require large reductions in emissions in the short-term.



Long-Term Multi-Gas Scenarios to Stabilise Radiative Forcing - Exploring Costs and Benefits Within an Integrated Assessment Framework

D.P. van Vuuren, B. Eickhout, P.L. Lucas and M.G.J. den Elzen

Year: 2006
Volume: Multi-Greenhouse Gas Mitigation and Climate Policy
Number: Special Issue #3
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-VolSI2006-NoSI3-10
View Abstract

Abstract:
This paper presents a set of multi-gas mitigation scenarios that aim for stabilisation of greenhouse gas radiative forcing in 2150 at levels from 3.7 to 5.3 W/m2. At the moment, non-CO2 gasses (methane, nitrous oxide, PFCs, HFCs and SF6) contribute to about a quarter of the global emissions. The analysis shows that including these non-CO2 gases in mitigation analysis is crucial in formulating a cost-effective response. For stabilisation at 4.5 W/m2, a multi-gas approach leads to 40% lower costs than an approach that would focus at CO2only. Within the assumptions used in this study, the non-CO2 gasses contribution to total reduction is very large under less stringent targets (up to 60%), but declines under stringent targets. While stabilising at 3.7 W/m2 obviously leads to larger environmental benefits than the 4.5 W/m2 case (temperature increase in 2100 are 1.9 and 2.3oC, respectively), the costs of the lower target are higher (0.80% and 0.34% of GDP in 2100, respectively). Improving knowledge on how future reduction potential for non-CO2 gasses could develop is shown to be a crucial research question.



Multigas Mitigation: An Economic Analysis Using GRAPE Model

Atsushi Kurosawa

Year: 2006
Volume: Multi-Greenhouse Gas Mitigation and Climate Policy
Number: Special Issue #3
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-VolSI2006-NoSI3-13
View Abstract

Abstract:
Future global warming may depend strongly on the potential for abating emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Flexibility in implementing climate change mitigation policies can significantly reduce mitigation costs and has three dimensions; space, time and gas species. Therefore, multiple greenhouse gas reduction flexibility should be considered. The emission and reduction potential of CO2 and non-CO2 GHGs are assessed here using an integrated assessment model under climate change targets. The implications on gas life as well as abatement timing uncertainty on costs, technological availability, etc. are discussed. The introduction of additional multigas reductions will cut the economic burden of achieving a given climate change target. The conclusions are threefold; (1) Multigas mitigation is a cost effective strategy compared to CO2-only mitigation under the same climate target, (2) CO2 mitigation is expected to lead to ancillary reductions in CH4, N2O and SOx emissions, and (3) There is great uncertainty in the assessment of non-CO2 GHG mitigation opportunities.



Burden Sharing Within a Multi-Gas Strategy

Alain Bernard, Marc Vielle and Laurent Viguier

Year: 2006
Volume: Multi-Greenhouse Gas Mitigation and Climate Policy
Number: Special Issue #3
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-VolSI2006-NoSI3-14
View Abstract

Abstract:
The purpose of this paper is to assess and compare regional welfare costs associated with alternative multi-gas strategies for a stabilization of global greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions in the long run. Mitigation costs of non-CO2 greenhouse gases are integrated into a multi-region multi-country CGE model of the world economy. Calibrations are based on GHG emissions projections from, and marginal abatement cost curves provided by, the EMF21 working group for the six greenhouse gases. We find that the introduction of non-CO2 GHGs in the mitigation strategy reduces significantly the welfare cost of a long term emissions stabilization policy but that benefits vary across regions. We also find that the various possible rules of emission quotas allocation may have large effects on the burden sharing among regions.



Benefits of Multi-Gas Mitigation: An Application of the Global Trade and Environment Model (GTEM)

Guy Jakeman and Brian S. Fisher 

Year: 2006
Volume: Multi-Greenhouse Gas Mitigation and Climate Policy
Number: Special Issue #3
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-VolSI2006-NoSI3-16
View Abstract

Abstract:
To address the problem of human induced climate change effectively, climate policy must embody the principles of economic efficiency, environmental effectiveness and equity. In this paper it is shown that such a climate change policy should include a broad coverage of major greenhouse gases and sources. ABARE�s Global Trade and Environment Model (GTEM) is used to analyse the economic impact of meeting a radiative forcing target using policies that focus on carbon dioxide emissions only and policies that focus on all major greenhouse gases and sources, including land use change and forestry emissions. It is projected that incorporating non-carbon dioxide gases into climate change policy reduces the economic adjustment cost significantly. Broadening the sources of carbon dioxide to include land use change and forestry emissions further reduces the economic adjustment costs.



Multi-gas Mitigation Analysis on Stabilization Scenarios Using Aim Global Model

Junichi Fujino, Rajesh Nair, Mikiko Kainuma, Toshihiko Masui  and Yuzuru Matsuoka  

Year: 2006
Volume: Multi-Greenhouse Gas Mitigation and Climate Policy
Number: Special Issue #3
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-VolSI2006-NoSI3-17
View Abstract

Abstract:
Non-CO2 gas (CH4, N2O and F gas) emissions account for 25 percent of all greenhouse gas in the year of 2000. Main sources of CH4 and N2O emissions are agriculture-related activities such as enteric fermentation, paddy rice cultivation, soil management. A recursive dynamic CGE (Computer General Equilibrium) model has been developed to analyze greenhouse gas reduction options including non-CO2 gas abatement technologies. Multi-regional, multisectoral and multi-gas CGE model and simple climate change model simulated long-term climate stabilization emission path. Preliminary results showed that multi gas mitigation options including CH4 and N2O abatement technologies will reduce GDP loss more than CO2 only mitigation options for long-term climate stabilization, even though CO2 mitigation options will reduce not only CO2 emissions but non-CO2 gas emissions simultaneously. It is necessary to collect regional non-CO2 gas data (emission, technology options, and so on) and conduct more sensitivity analysis with computer simulation model to reduce uncertainty of non-CO2 gas.



Multi-Gas Mitigation Analysis by IPAC

Kejun Jiang, Xiulian Hu, Zhu Songli

Year: 2006
Volume: Multi-Greenhouse Gas Mitigation and Climate Policy
Number: Special Issue #3
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-VolSI2006-NoSI3-22
View Abstract

Abstract:
By recognizing the importance of non-CO2 gases mitigation for climate change abatement, modeling study for multi-gas scenarios was conducted by using IPAC model. This is also part of EMF-21 study for comparing the cost for CO2 mitigation and multi-gas mitigation. The main objective of this analysis is to evaluate the international potential and costs of non-CO2 greenhouse gas abatement. Three scenarios were defined by EMF-21 study including modeler reference, CO2 only mitigation scenario and multi-gas mitigation scenario. By comparing the results for the three scenarios, it is found that there is quite large potential for non-CO2 mitigation potential. Multi-gas mitigation policies could have lower cost compared with CO2 only mitigation policies. In order to reach same mitigation target level of GHG emission, there could be 30% lower carbon tax rate for multi-gas mitigation, and therefore GDP loss could be reduced by 23% in 2100. Multi-gas mitigation could give less pressure for energy system to transform.





Begin New Search
Proceed to Checkout

 





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