Cost comparison of climate change mitigation options

The global community has reaffirmed its commitment to reduce greenhouse emissions to control the expected increase in the global average temperature. Thus, many governments and private sectors are interested in the cost-efficiency of frequently discussed mitigation methods forest and pasture carbon sequestration (FPCS) subsidy, carbon tax, and biofuels and their impacts on the global economy. We modified our new developed computable general equilibrium for the analysis. We simulate different rates to observe their mitigation potentials. Our results suggest that there is a trade-off between cost-efficiency and emission reduction between policies, where tax can achieve larger emission reductions under the same rate of FPCS but with higher economic costs. Likewise, combining tax and an equivalent subsidy has a larger reduction potential due to the synergistic effects, but food prices increase dramatically. Biofuels proved to be costlier than FPCS or tax. Acknowledgement : We would like to acknowledge and thanks the following institutions: Purdue Research Climate Research Center Ludwig Kruhe Doctoral Fellowship Bilsland Dissertation Doctoral Fellowship For their funding contribution in this research.(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)