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

Prioritizing Climate Change Mitigation Alternatives: Comparing Transportation Technologies to Options in Other Sectors

  • Lutsey, Nicholas P.
Registered author(s):

    Governments worldwide and in the U.S. are enacting a variety of measures to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from various economic sectors. Tools to prioritize these measures are generally lacking in analytical rigor. On the other hand, the research literature continues to proliferate with assessments of energy efficiency and GHG mitigation options that can be adapted to the policy evaluation process. This dissertation formulates an analytical method to better prioritize future climate change policy actions. A framework is developed to integrate current research on climate change mitigation technology alternatives from all sectors of the U.S. economy on an equal footing. Applying consistent economic assumptions, a multi-benefit cost-effectiveness accounting tool is developed that simultaneously evaluates the technology costs, lifetime energy saving benefits, and GHG reductions in a single cost-per-tonne-reduced metric. The framework synthesizes the disparate studies’ data to compare and prioritize options across sectors as well as determine the aggregate impacts from multiple sectors’ GHG mitigation actions. A broad portfolio of cost-effective technologies is available from each major sector of the economy. The findings indicate that there are many net-beneficial “no regrets†climate change mitigation technologies – where the energy savings of the technologies outweigh the initial costs – and most of these technologies are not being widely adopted. Transportation technologies are found to represent approximately half of the “no regrets†mitigation opportunities and about one-fifth of the least-cost GHG mitigation measures to achieve the benchmark 1990 GHG level. With the adoption of known near-term technologies, GHG emissions by 2030 could be reduced by 14% with net-zero-cost technologies, and emissions could be reduced by about 30% with technologies that each have net costs less than $30 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent reduced.

    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.escholarship.org/uc/item/5rd41433.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis in its series Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series with number qt5rd41433.

    as
    in new window

    Length:
    Date of creation: 01 Jun 2008
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:cdl:itsdav:qt5rd41433
    Contact details of provider: Postal: 2028 Academic Surge, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616
    Phone: (530) 752-6548
    Web page: http://www.escholarship.org/repec/itsdavis/
    Email:


    More information through EDIRC

    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. Delucchi, Mark, 2004. "Conceptual and Methodological Issues in Lifecycle Analyses of Transportation Fuels," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt8n77n6z7, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    2. Farla, Jacco & Blok, Kornelis & Schipper, Lee, 1997. "Energy efficiency developments in the pulp and paper industry : A cross-country comparison using physical production data," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(7-9), pages 745-758.
    3. Lutsey, Nicholas & Sperling, Daniel, 2008. "America's bottom-up climate change mitigation policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 673-685, February.
    4. Newell, Richard & Anderson, Soren, 2003. "Prospects for Carbon Capture and Storage Technologies," Discussion Papers dp-02-68, Resources For the Future.
    5. Ralph Alig & Darius Adams & Bruce McCarl & J. Callaway & Steven Winnett, 1997. "Assessing effects of mitigation strategies for global climate change with an intertemporal model of the U.S. forest and agriculture sectors," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 9(3), pages 259-274, April.
    6. Meier, Paul J. & Wilson, Paul P. H. & Kulcinski, Gerald L. & Denholm, Paul L., 2005. "US electric industry response to carbon constraint: a life-cycle assessment of supply side alternatives," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1099-1108, June.
    7. Koomey, Jonathan G. & Mahler, Susan A. & Webber, Carrie A. & McMahon, James E., 1999. "Projected regional impacts of appliance efficiency standards for the US residential sector," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 69-84.
    8. Jaffe, Adam B. & Stavins, Robert N., 1994. "The energy-efficiency gap What does it mean?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(10), pages 804-810, October.
    9. Lubowski, Ruben N. & Plantinga, Andrew J. & Stavins, Robert N., 2006. "Land-use change and carbon sinks: Econometric estimation of the carbon sequestration supply function," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 135-152, March.
    10. 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.
    11. Bang, Guri & Froyn, Camilla Bretteville & Hovi, Jon & Menz, Fredric C., 2007. "The United States and international climate cooperation: International "pull" versus domestic "push"," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 1282-1291, February.
    12. Delucchi, Mark, 2006. "Lifecycle Analyses of Biofuels," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt1pq0f84z, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    13. Lutsey, Nicholas P. & Sperling, Dan, 2008. "America's Bottom-Up Climate Change Mitigation Policy," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt8jj755d4, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    14. Difiglio, Carmen & Fulton, Lewis, 2000. "How to reduce US automobile greenhouse gas emissions," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 25(7), pages 657-673.
    15. RICHARD M. Adams & DARIUS M. Adams & JOHN M. Callaway & CHING-CHENG Chang & BRUCE A. Mccarl, 1993. "Sequestering Carbon On Agricultural Land: Social Cost And Impacts On Timber Markets," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 11(1), pages 76-87, 01.
    16. Blumstein, Carl & Stoft, Steven E, 1995. "Technical efficiency, production functions and conservation supply curves," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(9), pages 765-768, September.
    17. Panagiotis Karamanos, 2001. "Voluntary Environmental Agreements: Evolution and Definition of a New Environmental Policy Approach," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(1), pages 67-84.
    18. Huntington, Hillard G., 1994. "Been top down so long it looks like bottom up to me," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(10), pages 833-839, October.
    19. Greene, David L. & Patterson, Philip D. & Singh, Margaret & Li, Jia, 2005. "Feebates, rebates and gas-guzzler taxes: a study of incentives for increased fuel economy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 757-775, April.
    20. Ogden, Joan M. & Williams, Robert H. & Larson, Eric D., 2004. "Societal lifecycle costs of cars with alternative fuels/engines," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 7-27, January.
    21. Robert Ayres, 1994. "On economic disequilibrium and free lunch," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(5), pages 435-454, October.
    22. Byrne, John & Hughes, Kristen & Rickerson, Wilson & Kurdgelashvili, Lado, 2007. "American policy conflict in the greenhouse: Divergent trends in federal, regional, state, and local green energy and climate change policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 4555-4573, September.
    23. Burtraw, Dallas & Krupnick, Alan & Palmer, Karen & Paul, Anthony & Toman, Michael & Bloyd, Cary, 2003. "Ancillary benefits of reduced air pollution in the US from moderate greenhouse gas mitigation policies in the electricity sector," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 650-673, May.
    24. de la Chesnaye, Francisco & Harvey, Reid & Kruger, Dina & Laitner, John A. "Skip", 2001. "Cost-effective reductions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(14), pages 1325-1331, November.
    25. David L. Greene & K.G. Duleep & Walter McManus, 2004. "Future Potential of Hybrid and Diesel Powertrains in the U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle Market," Industrial Organization 0410003, EconWPA.
    26. Karen Palmer & Wallace E. Oates & Paul R. Portney, 1995. "Tightening Environmental Standards: The Benefit-Cost or the No-Cost Paradigm?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 119-132, Fall.
    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:cdl:itsdav:qt5rd41433. 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: (Lisa Schiff)

    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.