IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v38y2010i4p1797-1810.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effort sharing in ambitious, global climate change mitigation scenarios

Author

Listed:
  • Ekholm, Tommi
  • Soimakallio, Sampo
  • Moltmann, Sara
  • Höhne, Niklas
  • Syri, Sanna
  • Savolainen, Ilkka

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Ekholm, Tommi & Soimakallio, Sampo & Moltmann, Sara & Höhne, Niklas & Syri, Sanna & Savolainen, Ilkka, 2010. "Effort sharing in ambitious, global climate change mitigation scenarios," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 1797-1810, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:38:y:2010:i:4:p:1797-1810
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301-4215(09)00905-7
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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, March.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    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. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hasanuzzaman, M. & Rahim, N.A. & Hosenuzzaman, M. & Saidur, R. & Mahbubul, I.M. & Rashid, M.M., 2012. "Energy savings in the combustion based process heating in industrial sector," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(7), pages 4527-4536.
    2. Tommi Ekholm, 2014. "Hedging the climate sensitivity risks of a temperature target," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 127(2), pages 153-167, November.
    3. Yu, Shiwei & Wei, Yi-Ming & Wang, Ke, 2014. "Provincial allocation of carbon emission reduction targets in China: An approach based on improved fuzzy cluster and Shapley value decomposition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 630-644.
    4. Xunzhang, Pan & Wenying, Chen & Clarke, Leon E. & Lining, Wang & Guannan, Liu, 2017. "China's energy system transformation towards the 2°C goal: Implications of different effort-sharing principles," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 116-126.
    5. repec:eee:rensus:v:81:y:2018:i:p2:p:2271-2280 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Zhou, P. & Wang, M., 2016. "Carbon dioxide emissions allocation: A review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 47-59.
    7. Kesicki, Fabian & Anandarajah, Gabrial, 2011. "The role of energy-service demand reduction in global climate change mitigation: Combining energy modelling and decomposition analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(11), pages 7224-7233.
    8. Weber, Shlomo & Wiesmet, Hans, 2016. "Environmental awareness: The case of climate change," CEPR Discussion Papers 11525, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. Pan, Xunzhang & Teng, Fei & Wang, Gehua, 2014. "A comparison of carbon allocation schemes: On the equity-efficiency tradeoff," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 222-229.
    10. Pan, Xunzhang & Teng, Fei & Ha, Yuejiao & Wang, Gehua, 2014. "Equitable Access to Sustainable Development: Based on the comparative study of carbon emission rights allocation schemes," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 632-640.
    11. van Ruijven, Bas J. & Weitzel, Matthias & den Elzen, Michel G.J. & Hof, Andries F. & van Vuuren, Detlef P. & Peterson, Sonja & Narita, Daiju, 2012. "Emission allowances and mitigation costs of China and India resulting from different effort-sharing approaches," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 116-134.
    12. Ekholm, Tommi & Ghoddusi, Hamed & Krey, Volker & Riahi, Keywan, 2013. "The effect of financial constraints on energy-climate scenarios," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 562-572.
    13. Michel Elzen & Niklas Höhne & Markus Hagemann & Jasper Vliet & Detlef Vuuren, 2010. "Sharing developed countries’ post-2012 greenhouse gas emission reductions based on comparable efforts," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 15(5), pages 433-465, June.
    14. Ashina, Shuichi & Fujino, Junichi & Masui, Toshihiko & Ehara, Tomoki & Hibino, Go, 2012. "A roadmap towards a low-carbon society in Japan using backcasting methodology: Feasible pathways for achieving an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 584-598.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. 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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.