IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Effort sharing in ambitious, global climate change mitigation scenarios

  • Ekholm, Tommi
  • Soimakallio, Sampo
  • Moltmann, Sara
  • Höhne, Niklas
  • Syri, Sanna
  • Savolainen, Ilkka
Registered author(s):

    The post-2012 climate policy framework needs a global commitment to deep greenhouse gas emission cuts. This paper analyzes reaching ambitious emission targets up to 2050, either [hyphen (true graphic)]10% or [hyphen (true graphic)]50% from 1990 levels, and how the economic burden from mitigation efforts could be equitably shared between countries. The scenarios indicate a large low-cost mitigation potential in electricity and industry, while reaching low emission levels in international transportation and agricultural emissions might prove difficult. The two effort sharing approaches, Triptych and Multistage, were compared in terms of equitability and coherence. Both approaches produced an equitable cost distribution between countries, with least developed countries having negative or low costs and more developed countries having higher costs. There is, however, no definitive solution on how the costs should be balanced equitably between countries. Triptych seems to be yet more coherent than other approaches, as it can better accommodate national circumstances. Last, challenges and possible hindrances to effective mitigation and equitable effort sharing are presented. The findings underline the significance of assumptions behind effort sharing on mitigation potentials and current emissions, the challenge of sharing the effort with uncertain future allowance prices and how inefficient markets might undermine the efficiency of a cap-and-trade system.

    If 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.

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V2W-4Y0K9WG-3/2/170e4adb496090a4f2d954174cf98ca1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Energy Policy.

    Volume (Year): 38 (2010)
    Issue (Month): 4 (April)
    Pages: 1797-1810

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:38:y:2010:i:4:p:1797-1810
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

    References listed on IDEAS
    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.:

    as in new window
    1. Ringius, Lasse & Torvanger, Asbjorn & Holtsmark, Bjart, 1998. "Can multi-criteria rules fairly distribute climate burdens?: OECD results from three burden sharing rules," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(10), pages 777-793, August.
    2. Richard Loulou & Maryse Labriet, 2008. "ETSAP-TIAM: the TIMES integrated assessment model Part I: Model structure," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 7-40, February.
    3. Bohringer, Christoph & Welsch, Heinz, 2004. "Contraction and Convergence of carbon emissions: an intertemporal multi-region CGE analysis," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 21-39, January.
    4. Vaillancourt, Kathleen & Waaub, Jean-Philippe, 2004. "Equity in international greenhouse gases abatement scenarios: A multicriteria approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 153(2), pages 489-505, March.
    5. Richard Loulou, 2008. "ETSAP-TIAM: the TIMES integrated assessment model. part II: mathematical formulation," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 41-66, February.
    6. Shilpa Rao and Keywan Riahi, 2006. "The Role of Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases in Climate Change Mitigation: Long-term Scenarios for the 21st Century," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 177-200.
    7. 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.
    8. Macintosh, Andrew & Wallace, Lailey, 2009. "International aviation emissions to 2025: Can emissions be stabilised without restricting demand?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 264-273, January.
    9. 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.
    10. Michel Elzen & Marcel Berk & Paul Lucas & Patrick Criqui & Alban Kitous, 2006. "Multi-Stage: A Rule-Based Evolution of Future Commitments under the Climate Change Convention," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-28, 03.
    11. 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.
    12. Miketa, Asami & Schrattenholzer, Leo, 2006. "Equity implications of two burden-sharing rules for stabilizing greenhouse-gas concentrations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 877-891, May.
    13. Benjamin J. DeAngelo, Francisco C. de la Chesnaye, Robert H. Beach, Allan Sommer and Brian C. Murray , 2006. "Methane and Nitrous Oxide Mitigation in Agriculture," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 89-108.
    14. Groenenberg, Heleen & Phylipsen, Dian & Blok, Kornelis, 2001. "Differentiating commitments world wide: global differentiation of GHG emissions reductions based on the Triptych approach--a preliminary assessment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(12), pages 1007-1030, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:38:y:2010:i:4:p:1797-1810. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.