Carbon capture and sequestration: how much does this uncertain option affect near-term policy choices?
Policy makers as well as many economists recognize geological Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) as a key option to avoid costly emission reduction. While an extreme perspective is to envision CCS as a magic bullet to solve the issue of climate change, the economics perspective is more balanced and see it as a part of a portfolio of mitigation actions. Besides, as any novel mitigation technology, CCS can be implemented with a twofold purpose; on one side it can substitute some other technological efforts to reach a given environmental target. On the other side, it offers the opportunity to go for additional emission reductions andreach a "safer" climate target. In order to balance these twopossible utilizations of CCS and assess their respective effects onearly policystrategies, we undertake a twofold numerical experiment. First, a cost-efficiency analysis is undertaken where CCS sole effect is substitution of other efforts. This is followed by a cost-benefit analysis where both purposes have to be balanced. We find that future availability of CCS is less a reason to relax near-term abatement efforts than what could be inferred from previous analyses. Moreover, cost-benefit analysis indicates that the environmental target should be more ambitious when CCS is included in the picture.
|Date of creation:||16 Jun 2006|
|Date of revision:|
|Note:||View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00007298|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/|
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.:
- Riahi, Keywan & Rubin, Edward S. & Taylor, Margaret R. & Schrattenholzer, Leo & Hounshell, David, 2004. "Technological learning for carbon capture and sequestration technologies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 539-564, July.
- Akimoto, Keigo & Tomoda, Toshimasa & Fujii, Yasumasa & Yamaji, Kenji, 2004. "Assessment of global warming mitigation options with integrated assessment model DNE21," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 635-653, July.
- Minh Ha-Duong & David Keith, 2003. "Carbon storage: the economic efficiency of storing CO2 in leaky reservoirs," Post-Print halshs-00003927, HAL.
- Jean Charles Hourcade & Philippe Ambrosi & Stéphane Hallegatte & Franck Lecocq & Patrice Dumas & Minh Ha-Duong, 2003. "Optimal control models and elicitation of attitudes towards climate damages," Post-Print halshs-00000966, HAL.
- Minh Ha-Duong & Patrice Dumas, 2004. "An abrupt stochastic damage function to analyse climate policy benefits," Post-Print halshs-00002451, HAL.
- Pizer, William A., 2002. "Combining price and quantity controls to mitigate global climate change," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(3), pages 409-434, September.
- Peck, Stephen C. & Teisberg, Thomas J., 1993. "Global warming uncertainties and the value of information: an analysis using CETA," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 71-97, March.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:ciredw:halshs-00007298. 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: (CCSD)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.