IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/tcpoxx/v10y2010i6p684-704.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effect of different historical emissions datasets on emission targets of the sectoral mitigation approach Triptych

Author

Listed:
  • ANDRIES F. HOF
  • MICHEL G.J. DEN ELZEN

Abstract

The Triptych approach differentiates emission reduction targets under a future international climate agreement based on technological considerations at the sector level. The advantage of such a sectoral approach is that it allows for discussions on worldwide competing sectors and on the role of emission reduction contributions of developing countries. The disadvantage is that the reduction targets are influenced by countries' historical emissions data at the sectoral level, which are, especially for developing countries, uncertain. A major drawback of the analyses of the Triptych approach is that they lack a sensitivity analysis of the effect of using different historical emissions datasets on the allocation of emission allowances. The present article addresses this by analysing and comparing the differences in future emissions allowances under the Triptych approach, using two different historical emissions datasets. For some countries, the differences in historical emissions data are large. This leads to big differences in emission allocations: for 18 of the 32 countries considered, reduction targets in 2020 relative to the 2005 levels differ by more than 5 percentage points. This highlights the need for reliable, uniform sectoral emissions registrations at the country level for allocating emissions to sectors, especially for more sophisticated sectoral approaches than Triptych.

Suggested Citation

  • Andries F. Hof & Michel G.J. Den Elzen, 2010. "The effect of different historical emissions datasets on emission targets of the sectoral mitigation approach Triptych," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(6), pages 684-704, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:tcpoxx:v:10:y:2010:i:6:p:684-704
    DOI: 10.3763/cpol.2009.0649
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3763/cpol.2009.0649
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    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 & 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.
    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. Zhou, P. & Wang, M., 2016. "Carbon dioxide emissions allocation: A review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 47-59.
    2. Joachim Schleich & Elisabeth Dütschke & Claudia Schwirplies & Andreas Ziegler, 2016. "Citizens' perceptions of justice in international climate policy: an empirical analysis," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(1), pages 50-67, January.
    3. Zhu, Bangzhu & Jiang, Mingxing & He, Kaijian & Chevallier, Julien & Xie, Rui, 2018. "Allocating CO2 allowances to emitters in China: A multi-objective decision approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 441-451.
    4. Minxing Jiang & Bangzhu Zhu & Julien Chevallier & Rui Xie, 2018. "Allocating provincial CO2 quotas for the Chinese national carbon program," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 62(3), pages 457-479, July.
    5. Herrala, Risto & Goel, Rajeev K., 2016. "Sharing the emission reduction burden in an uneven world," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 29-39.
    6. Aldy, Joseph E., 2015. "Evaluating Mitigation Effort: Tools and Institutions for Assessing Nationally Determined Contributions," Working Paper Series 15-068, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    7. Laura Rodríguez-Fernández & Ana Belén Fernández Carvajal & María Bujidos-Casado, 2020. "Allocation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Using the Fairness Principle: A Multi-Country Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 12(14), pages 1-15, July.
    8. Joseph E. Aldy & William A. Pizer & Keigo Akimoto, 2017. "Comparing emissions mitigation efforts across countries," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(4), pages 501-515, May.
    9. Aldy, Joseph E. & Pizer, William A. & Akimoto, Keigo, 2015. "A natural outcome of the emerging pledge and review approach to international climate change policy is the interest in comparing mitigation efforts among countries. Domestic publics and stakeholders w," Discussion Papers dp-15-32, Resources For the Future.
    10. Aldy, Joseph Edgar & Pizer, William, 2016. "Alternative Metrics for Comparing Domestic Climate Change Mitigation Efforts and the Emerging International Climate Policy Architecture," Scholarly Articles 22808338, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    11. A. F. Hof & M. G. J. Elzen & A. Mendoza Beltran, 2016. "The EU 40 % greenhouse gas emission reduction target by 2030 in perspective," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 375-392, June.
    12. 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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:tcpoxx:v:10:y:2010:i:6:p:684-704. 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: (Chris Longhurst). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/tcpo20 .

    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.