Analysing comparable greenhouse gas mitigation efforts for Annex I countries
AbstractEU Heads of State and Government agreed in March 2007 that the EU will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 30% below 1990 levels by 2020 within an international post-2012 climate agreement, provided that other developed (Annex I) countries commit to comparable reductions. Within this context, this paper first explores the pros and cons of many possible conceptual approaches to assess the comparability of the mitigation efforts by Annex I countries. We selected six approaches for further analysis, which represent efforts well and are technically feasible. The implications of each of these six approaches were analysed in terms of the reductions and abatement costs that must be made by different Annex I countries to meet an aggregate reduction of 20% and 30%, respectively, below 1990 levels by 2020. The analysis indicates that significant reductions are necessary for all developed countries. This study shows that reductions by the EU of at least 30%, combined with comparable reduction efforts by other developed countries to meet the aggregate Annex I reduction target of 30% by 2020 and support of developed countries for developing countries to keep their emissions 15-30% below the baseline, are sufficient to achieve the EU climate goal of 2Â Â°C.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal Energy Policy.
Volume (Year): 37 (2009)
Issue (Month): 10 (October)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol
Climate policy Post-2012 climate mitigation regime Abatement costs;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- den Elzen, Michel & Lucas, Paul & Vuuren, Detlef van, 2005. "Abatement costs of post-Kyoto climate regimes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(16), pages 2138-2151, November.
- Sergey Paltsev & John M. Reilly & Henry D. Jacoby & Angelo C. Gurgel & Gilbert E. Metcalf & Andrei P. Sokolov & Jennifer F. Holak, 2007.
"Assessment of U.S. Cap-and-Trade Proposals,"
NBER Working Papers
13176, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Adam Rose & Brandt Stevens & Jae Edmonds & Marshall Wise, 1998. "International Equity and Differentiation in Global Warming Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(1), pages 25-51, July.
- Philibert, Cedric, 2000. "How could emissions trading benefit developing countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(13), pages 947-956, November.
- den Elzen, Michel & Höhne, Niklas & Moltmann, Sara, 2008. "The Triptych approach revisited: A staged sectoral approach for climate mitigation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 1107-1124, March.
- Yasuko Kameyama, 2004. "The Future Climate Regime: A Regional Comparison of Proposals," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 4(4), pages 307-326, December.
- Phylipsen, G J M & Bode, J W & Blok, K & Merkus, H & Metz, B, 1998. "A Triptych sectoral approach to burden differentiation; GHG emissions in the European bubble," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(12), pages 929-943, October.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.