| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
119796
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
We carry out a detailed computable general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the EU Decarbonisation Roadmap 2050 on a macroeconomic and on a sectoral level. Herein, we study a Reference scenario that implements existing EU policies as well as 3 unilateral and 3 global climate action scenarios. We identify global climate action with international emissions trading and the full equalisation of CO2 prices across all (EU) sectors as an economically reasonable policy option to avoid additional costs of the Decarbonisation Roadmap to a large extent. This policy option may include CDM (Clean Development Mechanism in the sense of 'where'-flexibility) in an extended form if there are countries without emissions caps. Moreover, we identify diverse sectoral effects in terms of output, investment, emissions and international competitiveness. We conclude that the successful realisation of the EU Decarbonisation Roadmap probably requires a wise and joint consideration of technology, policy design and sectoral aspects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
126601
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper analyses the impact of postponing global mitigation action on abatement costs and energy systems changes in China and India. It compares energy-system changes and mitigation costs from a global and two national energy-system models under two global emission pathways with medium likelihood of meeting the 2 °C target: a least-cost pathway and a pathway that postpones ambitious mitigation action, starting from the Copenhagen Accord pledges. Both pathways have similar 2010-2050 cumulative greenhouse gas emissions. The analysis shows that postponing mitigation action increases the lock-in in less energy efficient technologies and results in much higher cumulative mitigation costs. The models agree that carbon capture and storage (CCS) and nuclear energy are important mitigation technologies, while the shares of biofuels and other renewables vary largely over the models. Differences between India and China with respect to the timing of emission reductions and the choice of mitigation measures relate to differences in projections of rapid economic change, capital stock turnover and technological development. Furthermore, depending on the way it is implemented, climate policy could increase indoor air pollution, but it is likely to provide synergies for energy security. These relations should be taken into account when designing national climate policies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|