Great expectations: can international emissions trading deliver an equitable climate regime?

Climate change equity debates tend to focus on achieving a fair and global ‘allocation’ of emission rights among countries. Allocation proposals typically envision, if implicitly, two purposes for international emissions trading. First, trading is expected to serve as a cost-effective means of promoting compliance with emissions targets. Second, trading is posited as a means to generate financial transfers, typically from industrialized to transitioning and developing countries.This article investigates the common assumption that international emissions trading will effectively serve both of these purposes. We conclude that the two purposes might not be mutually supportive, and that efforts to use international emissions trading as a financial transfer mechanism may potentially undermine cost-effectiveness goals. International emissions trading on a global scale would create new risks in terms of both cost-effectiveness and environmental performance, some of which will be challenging to manage. In particular, uncertainties over market prices and trading eligibility, coupled with the costs of participation, may together be the Achilles heel of some allocation proposals that entail large financial transfers from industrialized to developing countries. Any proposal for an ‘equitable’ allocation of emission allowances, we conclude, must be cognizant of the risks and costs implied by a reliance on international emissions trading. We offer some suggestions to this end.     

Great expectations: can international emissions trading deliver an equitable climate regime?

Abstract

Climate change equity debates tend to focus on achieving a fair and global ‘allocation’ of emission rights among countries. Allocation proposals typically envision, if implicitly, two purposes for international emissions trading. First, trading is expected to serve as a cost-effective means of promoting compliance with emissions targets. Second, trading is posited as a means to generate financial transfers, typically from industrialized to transitioning and developing countries.

This article investigates the common assumption that international emissions trading will effectively serve both of these purposes. We conclude that the two purposes might not be mutually supportive, and that efforts to use international emissions trading as a financial transfer mechanism may potentially undermine cost-effectiveness goals. International emissions trading on a global scale would create new risks in terms of both cost-effectiveness and environmental performance, some of which will be challenging to manage. In particular, uncertainties over market prices and trading eligibility, coupled with the costs of participation, may together be the Achilles heel of some allocation proposals that entail large financial transfers from industrialized to developing countries. Any proposal for an ‘equitable’ allocation of emission allowances, we conclude, must be cognizant of the risks and costs implied by a reliance on international emissions trading. We offer some suggestions to this end.     

Harmonization vs. fragmentation: overview of climate policy scenarios in EMF27

This paper synthesizes results of the multi-model Energy Modeling Forum 27 (EMF27) with a focus on climate policy scenarios. The study included two harmonized long-term climate targets of 450 ppm CO₂-e (enforced in 2100) and 550 pm CO₂-e (not-to-exceed) as well as two more fragmented policies based on national and regional emissions targets. Stabilizing atmospheric GHG concentrations at 450 and 550 ppm CO₂-e requires a dramatic reduction of carbon emissions compared to baseline levels. Mitigation pathways for the 450 CO₂-e target are largely overlapping with the 550 CO₂-e pathways in the first half of the century, and the lower level is achieved through rapid reductions in atmospheric concentrations in the second half of the century aided by negative anthropogenic carbon flows. A fragmented scenario designed to extrapolate current levels of ambition into the future falls short of the emissions reductions required under the harmonized targets. In a more aggressive scenario intended to capture a break from observed levels of stringency, emissions are still somewhat higher in the second half due to unabated emissions from non-participating countries, emphasizing that a phase-out of global emissions in the long term can only be reached with full global participation. A key finding is that a large range of energy-related CO₂ emissions can be compatible with a given long-term target, depending on assumptions about carbon cycle response, non-CO₂ and land use CO₂ emissions abatement, partly explaining the spread in mitigation costs.     

Joint Implementation in Ukraine: national benefits and implications for further climate pacts

The contribution that no-lose target schemes for non-Annex I (NAI) countries could make to achieve the 2°C target is explored by accounting for the incentives of 18 NAI countries’ participation in no-lose target schemes. Using various scenarios, it is shown that implementing uniform no-lose targets as part of the burden-sharing will not lead to global emissions levels compatible with the 2°C target, because uniform no-lose targets will only be beneficial to a few NAI countries. Employing more lenient uniform no-lose targets or individual no-lose targets for large emitters could increase participation by NAI countries and decrease global emissions, global compliance costs, rents by NAI countries, and compliance costs for Annex I (AI) countries. However, the resulting global emissions levels will not be compatible with attaining the 2°C target. Achieving this target will require more stringent emissions targets for AI countries and more lenient no-lose targets for NAI countries. As such, no-lose targets should account for 20% to 47% of global emissions reductions, while due to emissions trading around two-thirds of global emissions reductions should be realized in NAI countries. Indeed, an effective solution may only require no-lose targets for five to seven of the largest NAI countries.

Policy relevance

No-lose targets are one of a number of instruments discussed under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change New Market Mechanism to integrate NAI countries in global emissions reduction efforts. In contrast to binding reduction targets, which apply penalties if a target is not met, no-lose targets provide incentives for meeting a target, e.g. in the form of excess emissions certificates that can be sold on the global carbon market. The presented simulations show that no-lose targets can result in contributions from NAI countries to global emissions reduction efforts. However, the simulations also show that the necessary incentives for no-lose targets need to be adjusted. AI countries require more ambitious targets and NAI countries require less ambitious no-lose targets than proposed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. Effective no-lose targets may only be required for five to seven of the largest NAI countries.     

Climate agreements based on responsibility for global warming: Periodic updating,policy choices,and regional costs

It has been suggested that calculations of historical responsibility for global warming should be used to distribute mitigation requirements in future climate agreements. For a medium-term mitigation scenario, we calculate regional mitigation costs resulting from global allocation schemes based on the Brazilian Proposal that solely incorporate historical responsibility as a burden sharing criterion. We find that they are likely to violate ability-to-pay principles. In spite of less stringent abatement requirements, developing country regions experience cost burdens (as a percentage of GDP) in the same range as those of developed countries. We also assess the policy options available for calculating historical responsibility. The periodic updating of responsibility calculations over time, concerns over the robustness and availability of emissions data, and the question of whether past emissions were knowingly harmful, may lead to policy choices that increase the relative historical responsibility attributed to developing countries. This, in turn, would increase their mitigation cost burden.     

Food consumption,diet shifts and associated non-CO2 greenhouse gases from agricultural production

Today, the agricultural sector accounts for approximately 15% of total global anthropogenic emissions, mainly methane and nitrous oxide. Projecting the future development of agricultural non-CO₂ greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is important to assess their impacts on the climate system but poses many problems as future demand of agricultural products is highly uncertain. We developed a global land use model (MAgPIE) that is suited to assess future anthropogenic agricultural non-CO₂ GHG emissions from various agricultural activities by combining socio-economic information on population, income, food demand, and production costs with spatially explicit environmental data on potential crop yields. In this article we describe how agricultural non-CO₂ GHG emissions are implemented within MAgPIE and compare our simulation results with other studies. Furthermore, we apply the model up to 2055 to assess the impact of future changes in food consumption and diet shifts, but also of technological mitigation options on agricultural non-CO₂ GHG emissions. As a result, we found that global agricultural non-CO₂ emissions increase significantly until 2055 if food energy consumption and diet preferences remain constant at the level of 1995. Non-CO₂ GHG emissions will rise even more if increasing food energy consumption and changing dietary preferences towards higher value foods, like meat and milk, with increasing income are taken into account. In contrast, under a scenario of reduced meat consumption, non-CO₂ GHG emissions would decrease even compared to 1995. Technological mitigation options in the agricultural sector have also the capability of decreasing non-CO₂ GHG emissions significantly. However, these technological mitigation options are not as effective as changes in food consumption. Highest reduction potentials will be achieved by a combination of both approaches.     

Public concern over global warming correlates negatively with national wealth

It has been shown previously that the awareness and concern of the general public about global warming is not only a function of scientific information. Both psychological and sociological factors affect the willingness of laypeople to acknowledge the reality of global warming, and to support climate policies of their home countries. In this paper, I analyse a cross-national dataset of public concern about global warming, utilising data from 46 countries. Based on earlier results at the national and regional level, I expect concern to be negatively correlated to national measures of wealth and carbon dioxide emissions. I find that gross domestic product is indeed negatively correlated to the proportion of a population that regards global warming as a serious problem. There is also a marginally significant tendency that nations’ per capita carbon dioxide emissions are negatively correlated to public concern. These findings suggest that the willingness of a nation to contribute to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions decreases with its share of these emissions. This is in accordance with psychological findings, but poses a problem for political decision-makers. When communicating with the public, scientists ought to be aware of their responsibility to use a language that is understood by laypeople.     

The relationship between short-term emissions and long-term concentration targets

The relationship between long-term climate goals and short/medium-term emission targets forms crucial information for the design of international climate policy. Since IPCC??s 4th Assessment Report (AR4), a large number of new scenario studies have been published. This paper reviews this new literature and finds that there is more flexibility in the timing of short-term emission reductions compared to the earlier scenarios assessed by the AR4. For instance, the current literature suggests that a peak of emissions in 2020 and even 2030 would be consistent with limiting temperature change to about 2??C in the long term. The timing when emissions peak depends on whether negative emissions in the long-term can be achieved. The recent scenarios further indicate that global emissions by 2050 should be 40?C80% below 2000 levels. Above all, the paper argues that there is no clear, single ??law?? that would directly determine the required emissions levels in 2020, but that instead policy-makers need to consider trade-offs between the likelihood of achieving long-term targets, the short-term costs, and their expectation with respect to future technologies (and their possible failure). The higher flexibility might be important in finding acceptable agreements on international climate policy.     

Understanding carbon trading: Effects of delegating CO2 responsibility on organizations’ trading behaviour

The establishment of a carbon market assumes that there is an effective means of transforming price information into technical carbon reduction measures. However, empirical evidence reveals that the links between price information and carbon management strategies are far from obvious. To understand how delegating CO₂ responsibility affects CO₂ trading behaviour, this article proposes a neo-institutionalist approach to answering the question of why companies became sellers, buyers or a combination of both during phase I of the European Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS). Original data from a survey on companies that participated in this scheme were collected and analysed. It was assumed that the trading scheme offered two ways to delegate decisions regarding emissions trading: decoupling from technical knowledge and financialization (i.e. delegating to financial departments) or coupling using technicalization (i.e. delegating to manufacturing departments). The results support the hypothesis that a company that adopts a decoupling strategy is more likely to buy certificates to fulfil their emissions targets. Adopting a coupling strategy indicates that a company is more likely to become a seller, all else equal. Professional identity is the theoretical basis for this relationship. Delegating carbon management to different departments represents either a stronger coupling or a stronger decoupling from core technological processes.

Policy relevance

The transaction data from phase I of the EU ETS open new questions and possibilities regarding the reasons that drive selling and buying in companies. It is important to look not only at the traditional sources of transaction costs, but rather also at the reasons for these tensions. One important source is the professional education of the people in charge of the EU ETS. Tailored information that directly addresses the different professional backgrounds of managers working in both financial departments and more technical departments might help to lower these types of transaction costs. In today's context, important emitter countries, such as China and Korea, have launched their own emissions markets, copying many aspects of the EU ETS. For the positive development of these markets and as a way of establishing a global emissions market, these new schemes should learn from the EU ETS experience.     

Keeping the forest for the climate's sake: avoiding deforestation in developing countries under the UNFCCC

Abstract

A process for reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries has been initiated under the UNFCCC. Efforts to agree on a legally binding instrument to halt deforestation have previously failed in other international fora. The magnitude of the social, economic, technical and political complexities underlying deforestation have led to negotiations being challenging. What policy instruments could provide incentives to reduce deforestation, and how could these instruments be framed, under the UNFCCC? This article analyses the advantages and disadvantages of the available alternatives within and outside of the Kyoto Protocol. Staying within the Kyoto framework means low institutional development costs, established but limited incentives for action, and low flexibility. Alternatives outside the Protocol provide higher institutional development costs, uncertainties with regard to the incentives, but greater flexibility. We argue that a separate protocol may be the most viable option, as it could offer the necessary flexibility and avoid some technical and political pitfalls that would be likely to beset new efforts under the Kyoto Protocol. The article also presents the concept of ‘committed forests’ as a means of defining geographically where the reduction of emissions from deforestation can take place.     

Costs of Reducing Carbon Emissions: An Integrated Modeling Framework Approach

This paper presents an approach to estimating world-regional carbon mitigation cost functions for the years 2020, 2050, and 2100. The approach explicitly includes uncertainty surrounding such carbon reduction costs. It is based on the analysis of global energy-economy-environment scenarios described for the 21st century. We use one baseline scenario and variants thereof to estimate cumulative costs of carbon mitigation as a function of cumulative carbon emission reductions. For our baseline for estimating carbon mitigation cost curves, we use the so-called IIASA F scenario. The F scenario is a high-growth, high-emissions scenario designed specifically to be used as a reference against which to evaluate alternatives. Carbon emissions and energy systems costs in the F scenario are then compared with (reduced) emissions and (higher) costs (including macroeconomic adjustment costs) of alternative scenarios taken from the IIASA scenario database. As a kind of sensitivity analysis of our approach, we also present the results of a scenario involving assumptions on particularly rapid technological progress.     

The economics of boldness: equity,action, and hope

Equity is usually interpreted in terms of the concept of justice, such that an equitable share of the atmospheric space is understood in terms of past emissions. This emphasizes the collective nature of sharing the burden of mitigation and the duty to act for those who have emitted the most. An alternative is considered: the aggregate costs and benefits to all Parties that could result from both increasing the level of collective ambition and implementing a climate regime that supports bold actions across all Parties. The regional impacts and carbon flow costs across differentiated scenarios are assessed and it is argued that the majority of developing-country Parties would be better off if a high ambition outcome to which all contributed, but some more than others. Moreover, those with middle or low emissions would have proportionally more to gain (or lose) relative to the level of ambition compared to those that have had higher emissions. The climate regime should be built on the principle of common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities (CBDR&RC), in which all act early even if some do much more; one that accounts for justice but does not forget hope.

Policy relevance

Differing interpretations of equity and the principles of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are discussed, with a focus on how these can enhance or hinder collective action. Whilst the climate change negotiations are usually taken as games in which one party gains and another loses, and interactions are dogged by continuous conflict, it is explored instead how negotiation responses can be framed in terms of cooperation. This would emphasize the gains that could be achieved by common but differentiated collective action, which could result in a collective avoidance of impacts. The possibilities that this shift of perspective could bring are explored by comparing costs under global cooperation (or lack of it). It is found that cooperation reduces the total costs for these regions. Thus, thinking in terms of cooperation focuses the options for negotiation on the means and interpretations of the UNFCCC principles that spur action and avoid climate impacts through collective action.     

中国交通部门低碳排放措施和路径研究综述

为实现2℃全球温升控制目标,中国交通部门亟待低碳转型.分析了当前交通部门的温室气体排放现状和发展趋势,结合已有减排措施的减排潜力和减排成本,探究中国交通部门未来低碳发展的可能路径.在未来若干年,中国交通部门碳排放将长期保持较快增长,其中道路运输在总排放中的占比仍然较高,而民航运输碳排放增速最快.现有减排措施主要可分为交...     

Implications of global emission policy scenarios for domestic agriculture: a New Zealand case study

Agricultural GHG mitigation policies are important if ambitious climate change goals are to be achieved, and have the potential to significantly lower global mitigation costs [Reisinger, A., Havlik, P., Riahi, K., van Vliet, O., Obersteiner, M., & Herrero, M. (2013). Implications of alternative metrics for global mitigation costs and greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Climatic Change, 117, 677–690]. In the post-Paris world of ‘nationally determined contributions’ to mitigation, the prospects for agricultural mitigation policies may rest on whether they are in the national economic interest of large agricultural producers. New Zealand is a major exporter of livestock products; this article uses New Zealand as a case study to consider the policy implications of three global policy scenarios at the global, national and farm levels. Building on global modelling, a model dairy farm and a model sheep and beef farm are used to estimate the changes in profit when agricultural emissions are priced and mitigated globally or not, and priced domestically or not, in 2020. Related to these scenarios is the metric or GHG exchange rate. Most livestock emissions are non-CO₂, with methane being particularly sensitive to the choice of metric. The results provide evidence that farm profitability is more sensitive to differing international policy scenarios than national economic welfare. The impact of the choice of metric is not as great as the impact of whether other countries mitigate agricultural emissions or not. Livestock farmers do best when agricultural emissions are not priced, as livestock commodity prices rise significantly due to competition for land from forestry. However, efficient farmers may still see a rise in profitability when agricultural emissions are fully priced worldwide.

Policy relevance

Exempting agricultural emissions from mitigation significantly increases the costs of limiting warming to 2 °C, placing the burden on other sectors. However, there may be a large impact on farmers if agricultural emissions are priced domestically when other countries are not doing the same. The impacts of global and national climate policies on farmers need to be better understood in order for climate policies to be politically sustainable. Transitional assistance that is not linked to emission levels could help, as long as the incentives to mitigate are maintained. In the long run, efficient farmers may benefit from climate policy; international efforts should focus on mitigation options and effective domestic policy development, rather than on metrics.     

Scenarios of methane emission reductions to 2030: abatement costs and co-benefits to ozone air quality and human mortality

Methane emissions contribute to global baseline surface ozone concentrations; therefore reducing methane to address climate change has significant co-benefits for air quality and human health. We analyze the costs of reducing methane from 2005 to 2030, as might be motivated to reduce climate forcing, and the resulting benefits from lower surface ozone to 2060. We construct three plausible scenarios of methane emission reductions, relative to a base scenario, ranging from 75 to 180 Mton CH₄ yr^?1 decreased in 2030. Using compilations of the global availability of methane emission reductions, the least aggressive scenario (A) does not incur any positive marginal costs to 2030, while the most aggressive (C) requires discovery of new methane abatement technologies. The present value of implementation costs for Scenario B are nearly equal to Scenario A, as it implements cost-saving options more quickly, even though it adopts positive cost measures. We estimate the avoided premature human mortalities due to surface ozone decreases by combining transient full-chemistry simulations of these scenarios in a global atmospheric chemical transport model, with concentration-mortality relationships from a short-term epidemiologic study and projected global population. An estimated 38,000 premature mortalities are avoided globally in 2030 under Scenario B. As benefits of methane reduction are positive but costs are negative for Scenario A, it is justified regardless of how avoided mortalities are valued. The incremental benefits of Scenario B also far outweigh the incremental costs. Scenario C has incremental costs that roughly equal benefits, only when technological learning is assumed. Benefits within industrialized nations alone also exceed costs in Scenarios A and B, assuming that the lowest-cost emission reductions, including those in developing nations, are implemented. Monetized co-benefits of methane mitigation for human health are estimated to be $13–17 per ton CO₂eq, with a wider range possible under alternative assumptions. Methane mitigation can be a cost-effective means of long-term and international air quality management, with concurrent benefits for climate.     

Sensitivity Study of Optimal CO2 Emission Paths Using a Simplified Structural Integrated Assessment Model (SIAM)

A structurally highly simplified, globally integrated coupled climate-economic costs model SIAM (Structural Integrated Assessment Model) is used to compute optimal paths of global CO₂ emissions that minimize the net sum of climate damage and mitigation costs. The model is used to study the sensitivity of the computed optimal emission paths with respect to various critical input assumptions. The climate module is represented by a linearized impulse-response model calibrated against a coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation climate model and a three-dimensional global carbon-cycle model. The cost terms are represented by strongly simplified expressions designed for maximal transparency with respect to sensitive input assumptions. These include the discount rates for mitigation and damage costs, the inertia of the socio-economic system, and the dependence of climate damages on the change in temperature and the rate of change of temperature. Different assumptions regarding these parameters are believed to be the cause of the marked divergences of existing cost-benefit analyses based on more sophisticated economic models. The long memory of the climate system implies that very long time horizons of several hundred years need to be considered to optimize CO₂ emissions on time scales relevant for a policy of sustainable development. Cost-benefit analyses over shorter time scales of a century or two can lead to dangerous underestimates of the long term climatic impact of increasing greenhouse-gas emissions. To avert a major long term global warming, CO₂ emissions need to be reduced ultimately to very low levels. However, the draw-down can be realized as a gradual transition process over many decades and even centuries. This should nevertheless not be interpreted as providing a time cushion for inaction: the transition becomes more costly the longer the necessary mitigation policies are delayed. However, the long time horizon provides adequate flexibility for later adjustments. Short term energy conservation alone is insufficient and can be viewed only as a useful measure in support of the necessary long term transition to carbon-free energy technologies. For standard climate damage cost expressions, optimal emission paths limiting long term global warming to acceptable sustainable development levels are recovered only if climate damage costs are not significantly discounted. Discounting of climate damages at normal economic rates yields emission paths that are only weakly reduced relative to business as usual scenarios, resulting in high global warming levels that are incompatible with the generally accepted requirements of sustainable development. The solutions are nevertheless logically consistent with the underlying discounting assumption, namely that the occurrence of global warming damages in the distant future as a result of present human activities is of negligible concern today. It follows that a commitment to long term sustainable development, if it in fact exists, should be expressed by an intertemporal relation for the value of the earth's future climate which does not degrade significantly over the time horizon relevant for climate change. Since the future climate is a common assett whose value cannot be determined on the market, the appropriate discount rate for future climate damages should be determined by an assessment of the public willingness to pay today for the mitigation of future climate change. To translate our general conclusions into quantitative cost estimates required by decision makers, the present exploratory study needs to be extended using more detailed disaggregated climate damage and mitigation cost estimates and more realistic socio-economic models, including multi-actor interactions, inherent variability, the role of uncertainty and adaptive control strategies.     

The impact of shale gas on the costs of climate policy

The use of shale gas is commonly considered as a low-cost option for meeting ambitious climate policy targets. This article explores global and country-specific effects of increasing global shale gas exploitation on the energy markets, on greenhouse gas emissions, and on mitigation costs. The global techno-economic partial equilibrium model POLES (Prospective Outlook on Long-term Energy Systems) is employed to compare policies which limit global warming to 2°C and baseline scenarios when the availability of shale gas is either high or low. According to the simulation results, a high availability of shale gas has rather small effects on the costs of meeting climate targets in the medium and long term. In the long term, a higher availability of shale gas increases baseline emissions of greenhouse gases for most countries and for the world, and leads to higher compliance costs for most, but not all, countries. Allowing for global trading of emission certificates does not alter these general results. In sum, these findings cast doubt on shale gas’s potential as a low-cost option for meeting ambitious global climate targets.

POLICY RELEVANCE

Many countries with a large shale gas resource base consider the expansion of local shale gas extraction as an option to reduce their GHG emissions. The findings in this article imply that a higher availability of shale gas in these countries might actually increase emissions and mitigation costs for these countries and also for the world. An increase in shale gas extraction may spur a switch from coal to gas electricity generation, thus lowering emissions. At the global level and for many countries, though, this effect is more than offset by a crowding out of renewable and nuclear energy carriers, and by lower energy prices, leading to higher emissions and higher mitigation costs in turn. These findings would warrant a re-evaluation of the climate strategy in most countries relying on the exploitation of shale gas to meet their climate targets.     

The impact of administrative transaction costs in the EU emissions trading system

This article empirically investigates the impact of transaction costs for monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) of emissions on companies regulated by the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) in Germany. Based on a unique panel dataset, we investigate if MRV costs are dependent on the amount of annual emissions of regulated companies and if there are differences in transaction costs between economic sectors. The results indicate that administrative costs are dependent on the amount of annual emissions for larger companies, which has implications for the economic efficiency of the EU ETS. The most important finding, however, is that there are significant differences in MRV transaction costs dependent on the type and size of companies. This implies the existence of considerable economies of scale. Overall, the EU ETS could benefit from reforms by means of a push towards upstream regulation as this would likely increase administrative efficiency.

Policy relevance statement

Transaction costs are, among other things, an important aspect of market-based climate policy design. A policy instrument with low transaction costs is preferred over instruments with larger transaction costs under equal conditions. This is occasionally referred to as administrative efficiency, and its importance was acknowledged in directive 2009/29/EC of the European Commission. Thoughtful empirical examination of transaction costs is essential in order to inform about the extent and impact of these costs. This article provides an analysis of transaction costs for monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) of emissions in the EU ETS. It is shown that administrative costs will likely have negative effects on the cost efficiency of the EU ETS. However, the most relevant finding is that small companies (<250 employees) or firms emitting small amounts of carbon dioxide per year face far higher average transaction costs compared with larger firms or emitters. Thus, there is a tendency for the EU ETS to cause MRV transaction costs that are disadvantageous for small companies. A regulation that is more upstream-oriented could mitigate this negative effect to some extent. The EU ETS could initiate a reform that is targeted on putting a price on the carbon content of fossil fuels instead of directly regulating emissions in a so-called ‘end-of-the-pipe’ way at the installation level.     

Postponing emission reductions from 2020 to 2030 increases climate risks and long-term costs

Substantially postponing the emission reductions, compared to the ranges indicated in IPCC’s recent assessment for 2020 as required for meeting the longterm 2°C target, increases the risk of exceeding this target. The costs of a delay strategy are lower in the short term, but leads to higher costs in the longer term. The analysis shows if the emission reductions are postponed to 2030 it is not likely that higher emissions from the earlier years can be fully compensated in future decades in a so-called ‘delayed action scenario’. A full compensation would require emission reduction rates in the coming decades that are much higher than those found in the scenario literature. Without compensation, the risk of exceeding the global temperature rise target of 2°C will increase. This confirms that it is not only the reduction commitments for 2050 that determine the risk of exceeding the 2°C target, but also the path between now and 2050. To meet this 2°C target, more ambitious 2020 reduction targets are needed for the developed and developing countries than those that have been pledged so far.     

The Paris Agreement and next steps in limiting global warming

The Paris Climate Agreement sets out an aggressive goal of limiting global average warming to well below 2 °C. As a first step, virtually all countries have put forth greenhouse gas emission reduction pledges in the form of nationally determined contributions, or NDCs, for the 2030 timeframe. Our analysis looks beyond the NDCs to explore potential post-2030 regional emissions reduction participation and ambition. For each scenario, we examine the implications for global emissions and long-term temperature. We then evaluate the regional consequences for energy systems and ensuing costs. We conclude by reflecting on the additional global abatement costs of tightening temperature goals. Overall, this study provides a multidimensional characterization of the scale of regional effort supporting climate outcomes, details important to decision-makers as they consider mid-century emissions targets, and long-run climate objectives.