Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

National and Sectoral GHG Mitigation Potential

2009, OECD/IEA Climate Change Expert Group Papers

Abstract
sparkles

AI

This paper provides a comparative analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation potential across six key OECD economies: Australia, Canada, the EU, Japan, Mexico, and the US, using data from 19 different models. It highlights the importance of understanding model structures, baseline and policy assumptions, and GHG mitigation estimates at various carbon prices. The findings indicate varying mitigation potentials for each economy, with significant implications for climate policy-making and commitments to emission reductions.

References (34)

  1. Akimoto, K. F.Sano, J.Oda, T.Homma, U.K.Rout, T.Tomoda, Global Emission Reductions through a Sectoral Intensity Target Scheme (2008): Climate Policy, Vol.8, S46-S59.
  2. Amann, M, I. Bertok, J. Borken, J. Cofala, C. Heyes, L. Hoglund, Z. Klimont, P. Purohit, P. Rafaj, W. Schöpp, G. Toth, F. Wagner, and W. Winiwarter (2008): Potentials and Costs for Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in Annex I Countries. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. http://gains.iiasa.ac.at/gains/reports/Annex1-methodology-20081129.pdf
  3. Amman, M., Rafaj, P., Höhne, N. (forthcoming): "GHG mitigation potentials in Annex I countries: Comparison of model estimates for 2020." Interim Report, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
  4. Australian Government (2008): Australia's Low Pollution Future: The Economics of Climate Change Mitigation. http://www.treasury.gov.au/lowpollutionfuture/report/default.asp
  5. Babiker, M., Gurgel, A., Paltsev, S., and Reilly, J. (2008): A Forward-Looking Version of the MIT Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis (EPPA) Model. MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report 161. Cambridge, Massachusetts. http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt161.pdf.
  6. Blanford, G J., Richels, R G., and Rutherford, T F. (2009): Feasible Climate Targets: The Roles of Economic Growth, Coalition Development and Expectations. Energy Economics.
  7. Böhringer, C. and Rutherford, T. (2006): "Energy Gains from "What"-Flexibility in Climate Policy: An Integrated CGE Assesment", The Energy Journal.
  8. Böhringer, C. and Rutherford, T. (2008): "The Costs of Compliance: A CGE Assessment of Canada's Policy Options under the Kyoto Protocol", The World Economy.
  9. Bosetti V., C. Carraro, M. Galeotti, E. Massetti and M. Tavoni, (2006): "WITCH: A World Induced Technical Change Hybrid Model", The Energy Journal, Special Issue. Hybrid Modeling of Energy- Environment Policies: Reconciling Bottom-up and Top-down, 13-38.
  10. Bosetti, Valentina, Massetti, E., and Tavoni, M. (2007): The WITCH Model: Structure, Baseline, Solutions. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Nota di Lavoro.
  11. Burniaux, J, Chateau, J, Dellink, R, Duval, R and Jamet, S. (2009) : The Economics of Climate Change Mitigation: How to Build the Necessary Global Action in a Cost-Effective Manner. OECD Economics Department Working Paper No.701, ECO/WKP(2009)42. www.oecd.org/env/cc/econ
  12. Burniaux, J, Chateau, J, Duval, R and Jamet, S. (2008) : The Economics of Climate Change Mitigation: Policies and Options for the Future. OECD Economics Department, Working Paper No. 658, ECO/WKP(2008)66. www.oecd.org/env/cc/econ
  13. Burniaux, J and Chateau, J. (2008): An Overview of the OECD ENV-Linkages Model. OECD Economics Department, Working Paper No. 653, ECO/WKP(2008)61.
  14. Calvin, K, Patel, P, Fawcett, A, Clarke, L, Fisher-Vanden, K, Edmonds, J, Kim, S, Sands, R, and Wise, M. (2009): The Distribution and Magnitude of Emissions Mitigation Costs in Climate Stabilization Under Less Than Perfect International Cooperation: SGM Results. Energy Economics.
  15. Capros et al. (1997): The GEM-E3 Model: Reference Manual (detailed technical documentation of the Model).
  16. Dellink, R.B. (2005): Modelling the Costs of Environmental Policy: A Dynamic Applied General Equilibrium Assessment. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, ISBN 1 84542 109 4. E.
  17. Hanaoka, T., Akashi, O., Kanamori, Y., Ikegam, T., Hasegawa, S., Fujimori, T., Hibino, G., Fujiwara, K., Motoki, Y., Kainuma, M. and Matsuoka, Y. (2009): Global Greenhouse Gas Technological Mitigation Potentials and Costs in 2020 -Second Edition , AIM Interim Report IPCC ( 2007): Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds.)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
  18. IEA (2008a): Emissions of CO 2 , CH 4 , N 2 O, HFC, PFC and SF 6 , Edition 2008, International Energy Agency. IEA (2008b): World Energy Outlook 2008, International Energy Agency.
  19. Kuik et al, 2008. Marginal abatement costs of greenhouse gas emissions: A meta analysis. Energy Policy 37(4): 1395-1403
  20. Manne, A., Mendelsohn, R., and Richels, R. 1995. MERGE: A Model for Evaluating Regional and Global Effects of GHG Reduction Policies. Energy Policy, vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 17-34.
  21. Morris, J., Paltsev, S. and Reilly, J. (2008): Marginal Abatement Costs and Marginal Welfare Costs for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions: Results from the EPPA Model. MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report No. 164.
  22. McKinsey and Company (2009): Pathways to a Low-Carbon Economy: Version 2 of the Global Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curve.
  23. Morris, J., Paltsev, S. and Reilly, J. (2008): Marginal Abatement Costs and Marginal Welfare Costs for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions: Results from the EPPA Model. MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report No. 164.
  24. McKibbin W. and P. Wilcoxen (1998): "The Theoretical and Empirical Structure of the G-Cubed Model" Economic Modelling , 16, 1, pp 123-148
  25. OECD (2008): OECD Environmental Outlook to 2030. Paris, France.
  26. Paltsev, S., Reilly, J. M., Jacoby, H. D., and Morris, J. F. (2009): The Cost of Climate Policy in the United States. Energy Economics.
  27. Paltsev, S., Reilly, J.M., Jacoby, H.D., Gurgel, A.C., Metcalf, G. E., Sokolov, A. P. and Holak, J. F. (2008): Assessment of U.S. GHG Cap-and-Trade Proposals. Climate Policy 8: 395-420.
  28. Paltsev, S., Reilly, J., Jacoby, H., Eckaus, R., McFarland, J., Sarofim, M., Asadoorian, M., and Babiker, M. (2005): The MIT Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis (EPPA) Model: Version 4. MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report No. 125. Cambridge, Massachusetts. http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt125.pdf.
  29. Richels, R G., and Geoffrey J. B. (2008): The Value of Technological Advance in Decarbonizing the U.S. Economy. Energy Economics, vol. 30, pp. 2930-2946.
  30. RITE (2009): RITE GHG Mitigation Assessment Model. http://www.rite.or.jp/Japanese/labo/sysken/about- global-warming/download-data/RITE_GHGMitigationAssessmentModel_20090529.pdf
  31. Ross, M T., Fawcett, A A., and Clapp, C S. (2009): U.S. Climate Mitigation Pathways Post-2012: Transition Scenarios in ADAGE. Energy Economics.
  32. Ross, M T. (2007): Documentation of the Applied Dynamic Analysis of the Global Economy (ADAGE) Model. Research Triangle Institute, Working Paper 07_02.
  33. Russ, P., Ciscar, J.-C., Saveyn, B., Soria, A., Szábó, L., Van Ierland, T., Van Regemorter, D., Virdis, R., (2009): "Economic Assessment of Post-2012 Global Climate Policies -Analysis of Gas Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Scenarios with the POLES and GEM-E3 models," European Commission, EUR 23768 EN.
  34. van Vuuren, D.P., et al. (2009) : Comparison of top-down and bottom-up estimates of sectoral and regional greenhouse gas emission reduction potentials. Energy Policy, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.07.024.