|
The answer to Question 6 is
taken from:
IPCC
 TAR
SPM of WG III
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
6.1. How is Climate Change a unique
problem?
"The Nature of
the Mitigation 1
Challenge
2. Climate
change2
is a problem with unique characteristics.
It is global, long-term (up to several
centuries), and involves complex interactions
between climatic, environmental, economic,
political, institutional, social and technological
processes. This may have significant international
and intergenerational implications in
the context of broader societal goals
such as equity and sustainable development.
Developing a response to climate change
is characterized by decision-making under
uncertainty and risk, including the possibility
of non-linear and/or irreversible changes
(Sections 1.2.5,
1.3,
10.1.2,
10.1.4,
10.4.5).
3
Links...
|
|
|
3. Alternative development
paths 4
can result in very different greenhouse
gas emissions. The SRES and the mitigation
scenarios assessed in this report suggest
that the type, magnitude, timing and costs
of mitigation depend on different national
circumstances and socio-economic, and
technological development paths and the
desired level of greenhouse gas concentration
stabilization in the atmosphere
(see Figure
SPM.1 for an example for total CO2
emissions). Development paths leading
to low emissions depend on a wide range
of policy choices and require major policy
changes in areas other than climate
change. (Sections 2.2.2,
2.3.2,
2.4.4,
2.5,
Links...
|
Reference
and Stabilization Scenarios
Figure SPM 1
|
|
|
4. Climate change mitigation
will both be affected by, and have impacts
on, broader socio-economic policies and
trends, such as those relating to development,
sustainability and equity. Climate
mitigation policies may promote sustainable
development when they are consistent with
such broader societal objectives. Some
mitigation actions may yield extensive
benefits in areas outside of climate
change: for example, they may reduce
health problems; increase employment;
reduce negative environmental impacts
(like air pollution); protect and enhance
forests, soils and watersheds; reduce
those subsidies and taxes which enhance
greenhouse gas emissions; and induce technological
change and diffusion, contributing to
wider goals of sustainable development.
Similarly, development paths that meet
sustainable development objectives may
result in lower levels of greenhouse gas
emissions. (Sections 1.3,
1.4,
2.2.3,
2.4.4,
2.5,
7.2.2,
8.2.4).
Links...
|
|
|
5. Differences in the
distribution of technological, natural
and financial resources among and within
nations and regions, and between generations,
as well as differences in mitigation costs,
are often key considerations in the analysis
of climate change mitigation options.
Much of the debate about the future differentiation
of contributions of countries to mitigation
and related equity issues also considers
these circumstances 5
. The challenge of addressing climate
change raises an important issue of
equity, namely the extent to which the
impacts of climate change or mitigation
policies create or exacerbate inequities
both within and across nations and regions.
Greenhouse gas stabilization scenarios
assessed in this report (except those
where stabilization occurs without new
climate policies, e.g. B1) assume that
developed countries and countries with
economies in transition limit and reduce
their greenhouse gas emissions first.
6
Links...
|
|
|
6. Lower emissions
scenarios require different patterns of
energy resource development. Figure
SPM.2 compares the cumulative carbon
emissions between 1990 and 2100 for various
SRES
scenarios to carbon contained in global
fossil fuel reserves and resources 7
. This figure shows that there are abundant
fossil fuel resources that will not limit
carbon emissions during the 21st
century. However, different from the relatively
large coal and unconventional oil and
gas deposits, the carbon in proven conventional
oil and gas reserves, or in conventional
oil resources, is much less than the cumulative
carbon emissions associated with stabilization
of carbon dioxide at levels of 450 ppmv
or higher (the reference to a particular
concentration level does not imply an
agreed-upon desirability of stabilization
at this level).
|
Carbon
in Oil, Gas
and Coal Reserves
Figure SPM-2
|
| |
|
These resource data may
imply a change in the energy mix and the
introduction of new sources of energy
during the 21st
century. The choice of energy mix and
associated investment will determine whether,
and if so, at what level and cost, greenhouse
concentrations can be stabilized. Currently
most such investment is directed towards
discovering and developing more conventional
and unconventional fossil resources."
(Sections 2.5.1,
2.5.2,
3.8.3,
8.4).
Links...
Source
& © :
IPCC
TAR SPM of WG III pages 3-4 and 6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
6.2. What are the options for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions?
6.2.1. What
technologies could reduce greenhouse gas
emissions?
6.2.2. How can forests
and agricultural lands help carbon mitigation?
6.2.3. What are the paths
to a low emissions future?
6.2.1. What technologies could reduce
greenhouse gas emissions?
"Options
to Limit or Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Enhance Sinks
7. Significant technical
progress relevant to greenhouse gas emissions
reduction has been made since the SAR
in 1995 and has been faster than anticipated.
Advances are taking place in a wide range
of technologies at different stages of
development, e.g., the market introduction
of wind turbines, the rapid elimination
of industrial by-product gases such as
N2O from
adipic acid production and perfluorocarbons
from aluminium production, efficient hybrid
engine cars, the advancement of fuel cell
technology, and the demonstration of underground
carbon dioxide storage. Technological
options for emissions reduction include
improved efficiency of end use devices
and energy conversion technologies, shift
to low-carbon and renewable biomass
fuels, zero-emissions technologies, improved
energy management, reduction of industrial
by-product and process gas emissions,
and carbon removal and storage. (Section
3.1,
4.7)
Links...
Table
SPM.1 summarizes the results from
many sectoral studies, largely at the
project, national and regional level with
some at the global levels, providing estimates
of potential greenhouse gas emission reductions
in the 2010 to 2020 timeframe. Some key
findings are:
- Hundreds of technologies
and practices for end-use energy efficiency
in buildings, transport and manufacturing
industries account for more than half
of this potential. (Sections 3.3,
3.4,
3.5)
Links...
- At least up to 2020,
energy supply and conversion will remain
dominated by relatively cheap and abundant
fossil fuels. Natural gas, where transmission
is economically feasible, will play
an important role in emission reduction
together with conversion efficiency
improvement, and greater use of combined
cycle and/or co-generation plants.(Section
3.8.4) Links...
- Low-carbon energy supply
systems can make an important contribution
through biomass from forestry and agricultural
by-products, municipal and industrial
waste to energy, dedicated biomass plantations,
where suitable land and water are available,
landfill methane, wind energy and hydropower,
and through the use and lifetime extension
of nuclear power plants. After 2010,
emissions from fossil and/or biomass-fueled
power plants could be reduced substantially
through pre- or post-combustion carbon
removal and storage. Environmental,
safety, reliability and proliferation
concerns may constrain the use of some
of these technologies . (Section
3.8.4) Links...
- In agriculture, methane
and nitrous oxide emissions can be reduced,
such as those from livestock enteric
fermentation, rice paddies, nitrogen
fertilizer use and animal wastes. (Section
3.6) Links...
- Depending on application,
emissions of fluorinated gases can be
minimized through process changes, improved
recovery, recycling and containment,
or avoided through the use of alternative
compounds and technologies. (Section
3.5 and Chapter
3 Appendix) Links...
The potential emissions
reductions found in Table
SPM.1 for sectors were aggregated
to provide estimates of global potential
emissions reductions taking account of
potential overlaps between and within
sectors and technologies to the extent
possible given the information available
in the underlying studies. Half of these
potential emissions reductions may be
achieved by 2020 with direct benefits
(energy saved) exceeding direct costs
(net capital, operating, and maintenance
costs), and the other half at a net direct
cost of up to US$100/tCeq (at 1998 prices).
These cost estimates are derived using
discount rates in the range of 5% to 12%,
consistent with public sector discount
rates. Private internal rates of return
vary greatly, and are often significantly
higher, affecting the rate of adoption
of these technologies by private entities.
Depending on the emissions
scenario this could allow global emissions
to be reduced below 2000 levels in 2010–2020
at these net direct costs. Realizing these
reductions involve additional implementation
costs, which in some cases may be substantial,
the possible need for supporting policies
(such as those described in Paragraph
18), increased research and development,
effective technology transfer and overcoming
other barriers (Paragraph
17). These issues, together with costs
and benefits not included in this evaluation
are discussed in Paragraphs
11, 12
and 13.
The various global, regional,
national, sector and project studies assessed
in this report have different scopes and
assumptions. Studies do not exist for
every sector and region. The range of
emissions reductions reported in Table
SPM.1 reflects the uncertainties (see
Box SPM.2)
of the underlying studies on which they
are based." (Sections
3.3-3.8)
Links...
Source
& © :
IPCC
TAR SPM of WG III pages 5-6
See an estimates of potential
global greenhouse gas emission reductions
in 2010 and in 2020 in Table
SPM.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
6.2.2. How can forests and agricultural
lands help carbon mitigation?
"8. Forests, agricultural
lands, and other terrestrial ecosystems
offer significant carbon mitigation potential.
Although not necessarily permanent, conservation
and sequestration of carbon may allow
time for other options to be further developed
and implemented. Biological mitigation
can occur by three strategies: (a) conservation
of existing carbon pools, (b) sequestration
by increasing the size of carbon pools,
and (c) substitution of sustainably produced
biological products, e.g. wood for energy
intensive construction products and biomass
for fossil fuels. (Sections 3.6,
4.3).
Conservation of threatened carbon pools
may help to avoid emissions, if leakage
can be prevented, and can only become
sustainable if the socio-economic drivers
for deforestation and other losses of
carbon pools can be addressed. Sequestration
reflects the biological dynamics of growth,
often starting slowly, passing through
a maximum, and then declining over decades
to centuries. Links...
Conservation and sequestration
result in higher carbon stocks, but can
lead to higher future carbon emissions
if these ecosystems
are severely disturbed by either natural
or direct/indirect human-induced disturbances.
Even though natural disturbances are normally
followed by re-sequestration, activities
to manage such disturbances can play an
important role in limiting carbon emissions.
Substitution benefits can, in principle,
continue indefinitely. Appropriate management
of land for crop, timber and sustainable
bio-energy production, may increase benefits
for climate
change mitigation. Taking into account
competition for land use and the SAR and
SRLULUCF assessments, the estimated global
potential of biological mitigation options
is in the order of 100GtC (cumulative),
although there are substantial uncertainties
associated with this estimate, by 2050,
equivalent to about 10% to 20% of potential
fossil fuel emissions during that period.
Realization of this potential depends
upon land and water availability as well
as the rates of adoption of different
land management practices. The largest
biological potential for atmospheric carbon
mitigation is in subtropical and tropical
regions. Cost estimates reported to date
of biological mitigation vary significantly
from US$0.1/tC to about US$20/tC in several
tropical countries and from US$20/tC to
US$100/tC in non-tropical countries. Methods
of financial analysis and carbon accounting
have not been comparable. Moreover, the
cost calculations do not cover, in many
instances, inter alia, costs for infrastructure,
appropriate discounting, monitoring, data
collection and implementation costs, opportunity
costs of land and maintenance, or other
recurring costs, which are often excluded
or overlooked. The lower end of the ranges
are biased downwards, but understanding
and treatment of costs is improving over
time. These biological mitigation options
may have social, economic and environmental
benefits beyond reductions in atmospheric
CO2, if
implemented appropriately. (e.g., biodiversity,
watershed protection, enhancement of sustainable
land management and rural employment).
However, if implemented inappropriately,
they may pose risks of negative impacts
(e.g., loss of biodiversity, community
disruption and ground-water pollution).
Biological mitigation options may reduce
or increase non-CO2
greenhouse gas emissions." (Sections
4.3,
4.4)
Links...
Source
& © :
IPCC
TAR SPM of WG III page 8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
6.2.3. What are the paths to a low emissions
future?
"9. There is no
single path to a low emission future and
countries and regions will have to choose
their own path. Most model results indicate
that known technological options 8
could achieve a broad range of atmospheric
CO2 stabilization
levels, such as 550ppmv, 450ppmv or below
over the next 100 years or more, but implementation
would require associated socio-economic
and institutional changes. To achieve
stabilization at these levels, the scenarios
suggest that a very significant reduction
in world carbon emissions per unit of
GDP from 1990 levels will be necessary.
Technological improvement and technology
transfer play a critical role in the stabilization
scenarios assessed in this report. For
the crucial energy sector, almost all
greenhouse gas mitigation and concentration
stabilization scenarios are characterized
by the introduction of efficient technologies
for both energy use and supply, and of
low- or no-carbon energy. However, no
single technology option will provide
all of the emissions reductions needed.
Reduction options in non-energy sources
and non-CO2
greenhouse gases will also provide significant
potential for reducing emissions. Transfer
of technologies between countries and
regions will widen the choice of options
at the regional level and economies of
scale and learning will lower the costs
of their adoption. (Sections 2.3.2,
2.4,
2.5).
Links...
"10. Social learning
and innovation, and changes in institutional
structure could contribute to climate
change mitigation. Changes in
collective rules and individual behaviours
may have significant effects on greenhouse
gas emissions, but take place within a
complex institutional, regulatory and
legal setting. Several studies suggest
that current incentive systems can encourage
resource intensive production and consumption
patterns that increase greenhouse gas
emissions in all sectors, e.g. transport
and housing. In the shorter term, there
are opportunities to influence through
social innovations individual and organizational
behaviours. In the longer term such innovations,
in combination with technological change,
may further enhance socio-economic potential,
particularly if preferences and cultural
norms shift towards lower emitting and
sustainable behaviours. These innovations
frequently meet with resistance, which
may be addressed by encouraging greater
public participation in the decision-making
processes. This can help contribute to
new approaches to sustainability and equity."
(Sections 1.4.3,
5.3.8,
10.3.2,
10.3.4).
Links...
Source
& © :
IPCC
TAR SPM of WG III page 8
|
"Box
SPM.2. Approaches to Estimating
Costs and Benefits,
and their Uncertainties
For a variety of factors, significant
differences and uncertainties surround
specific quantitative estimates
of the costs and benefits of mitigation
options. The SAR described two categories
of approaches to estimating costs
and benefits: bottom-up approaches,
which build up from assessments
of specific technologies and sectors,
such as those described in Paragraph
7, and top-down modelling studies,
which proceed from macroeconomic
relationships, such as those discussed
in Paragraph
13. These two approaches lead
to differences in the estimates
of costs and benefits, which have
been narrowed since the SAR. Even
if these differences were resolved,
other uncertainties would remain.
The potential impact of these uncertainties
can be usefully assessed by examining
the effect of a change in any given
assumption on the aggregate cost
results, provided any correlation
between variables is adequately
dealt with."
Source
& © :
IPCC
TAR SPM of WG III page 9
| Back
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
6.3. What would be the costs of implementing
the Kyoto Protocol?
6.3.1. Why
do cost and benefits estimates of mitigation
actions differ?
6.3.2. How can some mitigation
actions carry no or negative cost?
6.3.3. What will the
Kyoto Protocol cost to developed countries?
6.3.4. How will the mitigation
costs vary with the CO2 stabilization
level?
6.3.5. How will the mitigation
costs be distributed among industries?
6.3.6. How will the Kyoto
Protocol affect developing countries?
6.3.1. Why do cost
and benefits estimates of mitigation actions
differ?
"11. Estimates
of cost and benefits of mitigation actions
differ because of (i) how welfare is measured,
(ii) the scope and methodology of the
analysis, and (iii) the underlying assumptions
built into the analysis. As a result,
estimated costs and benefits may not reflect
the actual costs and benefits of implementing
mitigation actions. With respect to
(i) and (ii), costs and benefits estimates,
inter alia, depend on revenue recycling,
and whether and how the following are
considered: implementation and transaction
cost, distributional impacts, multiple
gases, land-use change options, benefits
of avoided climate
change, ancillary benefits, no regrets
opportunities 10
and valuation of externalities and non-market
impacts. Assumptions include, inter alia:
- Demographic change,
the rate and structure of economic growth;
increases in personal mobility, technological
innovation such as improvements in energy
efficiency and the availability of low-cost
energy sources, flexibility of capital
investments and labour markets, prices,
fiscal distortions in the no-policy
(baseline) scenario.
- The level and timing
of the mitigation target.
- Assumptions regarding
implementation measures, e.g. the extent
of emissions trading, the Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation
(JI), regulation, and voluntary agreements
11 and the associated transaction
costs.
- Discount rates: the
long time scales make discounting assumptions
critical and there is still no consensus
on appropriate long-term rates, though
the literature shows increasing attention
to rates that decline over time and
hence give more weight to benefits that
occur in the long term. These discount
rates should be distinguished from the
higher rates that private agents generally
use in market transaction." (Sections
 7.2,
7.3,
8.2.1,
8.2.2,
9.4)
Links...
Source
& © :
IPCC
TAR SPM of WG III page 9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
6.3.2. How can some mitigation actions
carry no or negative cost?
"12. Some sources
of greenhouse gas emissions can be limited
at no or negative net social cost to the
extent that policies can exploit no regrets
opportunities (Sections
7.3.4,
9.2.1):
- Market imperfections.
Reduction of existing market or institutional
failures and other barriers that impede
adoption of cost-effective emission
reduction measures, can lower private
costs compared to current practice.
This can also reduce private costs overall.
- Ancillary benefits.
Climate
change mitigation measures will
have effects on other societal issues.
For example, reducing carbon emissions
in many cases will result in the simultaneous
reduction in local and regional air
pollution. It is likely that mitigation
strategies will also affect transportation,
agriculture, land-use practices and
waste management and will have an impact
on other issues of social concern, such
as employment, and energy security.
However, not all of the effects will
be positive; careful policy selection
and design can better ensure positive
effects and minimize negative impacts.
In some cases, the magnitude of ancillary
benefits of mitigation may be comparable
to the costs of the mitigating measures,
adding to the no regrets potential,
although estimates are difficult to
make and vary widely. (Sections 7.3.3,
8.2.4,
9.2.2-9.2.8,
9.2.10)
Links...
- Double dividend.
Instruments (such as taxes or auctioned
permits) provide revenues to the government.
If used to finance reductions in existing
distortionary taxes (“revenue recycling”),
these revenues reduce the economic cost
of achieving greenhouse gas reductions.
The magnitude of this offset depends
on the existing tax structure, type
of tax cuts, labour market conditions,
and method of recycling. Under some
circumstances, it is possible that the
economic benefits may exceed the costs
of mitigation." (Sections 7.3.3,
8.2.2,
9.2.1)
Links...
Source
& © :
IPCC
TAR SPM of WG III page 9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
6.3.3. What will the Kyoto Protocol
cost to developed countries?
"13. The cost
estimates for Annex B countries
14 to implement the Kyoto Protocol
vary between studies and regions as indicated
in Paragraph
11, and depend strongly upon the assumptions
regarding the use of the Kyoto mechanisms,
and their interactions with domestic measures.
The great majority of global studies reporting
and comparing these costs use international
energy-economic models. Nine of these
studies suggest the following GDP impacts
12
(Sections 7.3.5,
8.3.1,
9.2.3,
10.4.4)
Links...:
Annex II countries
13
: In the absence of emissions trading
between Annex B countries
14, the majority of global studies
show reductions in projected GDP of about
0.2% to 2% in 2010 for different Annex
II regions. With full emissions trading
between Annex B countries, the estimated
reductions in 2010 are between 0.1% and
1.1% of projected GDP 15.
These studies encompass a wide range of
assumptions as listed in Paragraph 11.
Models whose results are reported in this
paragraph assume full use of emissions
trading without transaction cost. Results
for cases that do not allow Annex B trading
assume full domestic trading within each
region. Models do not include sinks or
non-CO2
greenhouse gases. They do not include
the CDM, negative cost options, ancillary
benefits, or targeted revenue recycling.
For all regions costs are also influenced
by the following factors:
- Constraints on the
use of Annex B trading, high transaction
costs in implementing the mechanisms,
and inefficient domestic implementation
could raise costs.
- Inclusion in domestic
policy and measures of the no regrets
possibilities 10
identified in Paragraph
12, use of the CDM,
sinks, and inclusion of non-CO2
greenhouse gases, could lower costs.
Costs for individual countries can vary
more widely.
The models show that the
Kyoto mechanisms are important in controlling
risks of high costs in given countries,
and thus can complement domestic policy
mechanisms. Similarly, they can minimize
risks of inequitable international impacts
and help to level marginal costs. The
global modelling studies reported above
show national marginal costs to meet the
Kyoto targets from about US$20/tC up to
US$600/tC without trading, and a range
from about US$15/tC up to US$150/tC with
Annex B trading. The cost reductions from
these mechanisms may depend on the details
of implementation, including the compatibility
of domestic and international mechanisms,
constraints, and transaction costs.
Economies in transition:
For most of these countries, GDP effects
range from negligible to a several per
cent increase. This reflects opportunities
for energy efficiency improvements not
available to Annex II countries. Under
assumptions of drastic energy efficiency
improvement and/or continuing economic
recessions in some countries, the assigned
amounts may exceed projected emissions
in the first commitment period. In this
case, models show increased GDP due to
revenues from trading assigned amounts.
However, for some economies in transition,
implementing the Kyoto Protocol will have
similar impact on GDP as for Annex II
countries." Links...
Source
& © :
IPCC
TAR SPM of WG III page 10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
6.3.4. How will the mitigation costs
vary with the CO2 stabilization
level?
"14. Cost-effectiveness
studies with a century timescale estimate
that the costs of stabilizing CO2
concentrations in the atmosphere increase
as the concentration stabilization level
declines. Different baselines can have
a strong influence on absolute costs.
While there is a moderate increase in
the costs when passing from a 750ppmv
to a 550ppmv concentration stabilization
level, there is a larger increase in costs
passing from 550ppmv to 450ppmv unless
the emissions in the baseline scenario
are very low. These results, however,
do not incorporate carbon sequestration,
gases other than CO2
and did not examine the possible effect
of more ambitious targets on induced technological
change 16.
Costs associated with each concentration
level depend on numerous factors including
the rate of discount, distribution of
emission reductions over time, policies
and measures employed, and particularly
the choice of the baseline scenario: for
scenarios characterized by a focus on
local and regional sustainable development
for example, total costs of stabilizing
at a particular level are significantly
lower than for other scenarios 17."
(Sections 2.5.2,
8.4.1,
10.4.6)
Links...
Source
& © :
IPCC
TAR SPM of WG III page 10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
6.3.5. How will the mitigation costs
be distributed among industries?
"15. Under any
greenhouse gas mitigation effort, the
economic costs and benefits are distributed
unevenly between sectors; to a varying
degree, the costs of mitigation actions
could be reduced by appropriate policies.
In general, it is easier to identify activities,
which stand to suffer economic costs compared
to those which may benefit, and the economic
costs are more immediate, more concentrated
and more certain. Under mitigation policies,
coal, possibly oil and gas, and certain
energy-intensive sectors, such as steel
production, are most likely to suffer
an economic disadvantage. Other industries
including renewable energy industries
and services can be expected to benefit
in the long term fro"15. Under any
greenhouse gas mitigation effort, the
economic costs and benefits are distributed
unevenly between sectors; to a varying
degree, the costs of mitigation actions
could be reduced by appropriate policies.
In general, it is easier to identify activities,
which stand to suffer economic costs compared
to those which may benefit, and the economic
costs are more immediate, more concentrated
and more certain. Under mitigation policies,
coal, possibly oil and gas, and certain
energy-intensive sectors, such as steel
production, are most likely to suffer
an economic disadvantage. Other industries
including renewable energy industries
and services can be expected to benefit
in the long term from price changes and
the availability of financial and other
resources that would otherwise have been
devoted to carbon-intensive sectors. Policies
such as the removal of subsidies from
fossil fuels may increase total societal
benefits through gains in economic efficiency,
while use of the Kyoto mechanisms could
be expected to reduce the net economic
cost of meeting Annex B targets. Other
types of policies, for example exempting
carbon-intensive industries, redistribute
the costs but increase total societal
costs at the same time. Most studies show
that the distributional effects of a carbon
tax can have negative income effects on
low-income groups unless the tax revenues
are used directly or indirectly to compensate
such effects." (Section 9.2.1)
Links...
Source
& © :
IPCC
TAR SPM of WG III page 11
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
6.3.6. How will the Kyoto Protocol affect
developing countries?
"16. Emission
constraints in Annex I countries have
well established, albeit varied “spillover”
effects 18
on non-Annex I countries (Sections
8.3.2,
9.3)
Links....
- Oil-exporting, non-Annex
I countries: Analyses report costs differently,
including, inter alia, reductions in
projected GDP and reductions in projected
oil revenues 19.
The study reporting the lowest costs
shows reductions of 0.2% of projected
GDP with no emissions trading, and less
than 0.05% of projected GDP with Annex
B emissions trading in 2010 20.
The study reporting the highest costs
shows reductions of 25% of projected
oil revenues with no emissions trading,
and 13% of projected oil revenues with
Annex B emissions trading in 2010. These
studies do not consider policies and
measures 21
other than Annex B emissions trading,
that could lessen the impact on non-Annex
I, oil-exporting countries, and therefore
tend to overstate both the costs to
these countries and overall costs.
The effects on these countries can be
further reduced by removal of subsidies
for fossil fuels, energy tax restructuring
according to carbon content, increased
use of natural gas, and diversification
of the economies of non-Annex I, oil-exporting
countries.
- Other non-Annex
I countries: They may be adversely affected
by reductions in demand for their exports
to OECD nations and by the price increase
of those carbon-intensive and other
products they continue to import. These
countries may benefit from the reduction
in fuel prices, increased exports of
carbon-intensive products and the transfer
of environmentally sound technologies
and know-how. The net balance for
a given country depends on which of
these factors dominates. Because of
these complexities, the breakdown of
winners and losers remains uncertain.
- Carbon leakage 22.
The possible relocation of some carbon-intensive
industries to non-Annex I countries
and wider impacts on trade flows in
response to changing prices may lead
to leakage in the order of 5%-20% (Section
8.3.2.2). Exemptions, for
example for energy-intensive industries,
make the higher model estimates for
carbon leakage unlikely, but would raise
aggregate costs. The transfer of environmentally
sound technologies and know-how, not
included in models, may lead to lower
leakage and especially on the longer
term may more than offset the leakage."
Links...
Source
& © :
IPCC
TAR SPM of WG III page 11
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
6.4. What are the ways and means for
mitigation?
6.4.1. What
policy instruments can be used to reduce
greenhouse gas?
6.4.2. How can the effectiveness
of mitigation be enhanced?
6.4.3. How can mitigation
costs be reduced?
6.4.4. Should decision-making
concentrate on the long term or near term?
6.4.5. What is the role
of an international regime in climate
policy?
"17. The successful
implementation of greenhouse gas mitigation
options needs to overcome many technical,
economic, political, cultural, social,
behavioural and/or institutional barriers
which prevent the full exploitation of
the technological, economic and social
opportunities of these mitigation options.
The potential mitigation opportunities
and types of barriers vary by region and
sector, and over time. This is caused
by the wide variation in mitigation capacity.
The poor in any country are faced with
limited opportunities to adopt technologies
or change their social behaviour, particularly
if they are not part of a cash economy,
and most countries could benefit from
innovative financing and institutional
reform and removing barriers to trade.
In the industrialized countries, future
opportunities lie primarily in removing
social and behavioural barriers; in countries
with economies in transition, in price
rationalization; and in developing countries,
in price rationalization, increased access
to data and information, availability
of advanced technologies, financial resources,
and training and capacity building. Opportunities
for any given country, however, might
be found in the removal of any combination
of barriers." (Sections 1.5,
5.3,
5.4)
Links...
Source
& © :
IPCC
TAR SPM of WG III pages 11-12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
6.4.1. What policy instruments can be
used to reduce greenhouse gases?
"18. National
responses to climate
change can be more effective if deployed
as a portfolio of policy instruments to
limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The portfolio of national climate policy
instruments may include - according to
national circumstances - emissions/carbon/energy
taxes, tradable or non-tradable permits,
provision and/or removal of subsidies,
deposit/refund systems, technology or
performance standards, energy mix requirements,
product bans, voluntary agreements, government
spending and investment, and support for
research and development. Each government
may apply different evaluation criteria,
which may lead to different portfolios
of instruments. The literature in general
gives no preference for any particular
policy instrument. Market based instruments
may be cost-effective in many cases, especially
where capacity to administer them is developed.
Energy efficiency standards and performance
regulations are widely used, and may be
effective in many countries, and sometimes
precede market based instruments. Voluntary
agreements have recently been used more
frequently, sometimes preceding the introduction
of more stringent measures. Information
campaigns, environmental labelling, and
green marketing, alone or in combination
with incentive subsidies, are increasingly
emphasized to inform and shape consumer
or producer behaviour. Government and/or
privately supported research and development
is important in advancing the long-term
application and transfer of mitigation
technologies beyond the current market
or economic potential." (Section
6.2) Links...
Source
& © :
IPCC
TAR SPM of WG III page 12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
6.4.2. How can the effectiveness of
mitigation be enhanced?
"19. The effectiveness
of climate
change mitigation can be enhanced
when climate policies are integrated with
the non-climate objectives of national
and sectorial policy development and be
turned into broad transition strategies
to achieve the long-term social and technological
changes required by both sustainable development
and climate change mitigation. Just
as climate policies can yield ancillary
benefits that improve wellbeing, non-climate
policies may produce climate benefits.
It may be possible to significantly reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by pursuing climate
objectives through general socio-economic
policies. In many countries, the carbon
intensity of energy systems may vary depending
| |
