Synergies and trade-offs between adaptation,mitigation and development

To succeed in meeting carbon emissions reduction targets to limit projected climate change impacts, it is imperative that improved synergies be developed between mitigation and adaptation strategies. This is especially important in development policy among remote indigenous communities, where demands for development have often not been accompanied by commensurate efforts to respond to future climate change impacts. Here we explore how mitigation and adaptation pathways can be combined to transform rural indigenous communities toward sustainability. Case studies from communities in Alaska and Nepal are introduced to illustrate current and potential synergies and trade-offs and how these might be harnessed to maximize beneficial outcomes. The adaptation pathways approach and a framework for transformational adaptation are proposed to unpack these issues and develop understanding of how positive transformational change can be supported.     

Carbon tariffs for financing clean development

In order to address carbon leakage and preserve the competitiveness of domestic industries, some industrialized Annex I countries have proposed to implement carbon tariffs. These tariffs would be levied on energy-intensive imports from developing non-Annex I countries that have not agreed to binding emissions reductions. This action could have detrimental welfare impacts, especially on those developing countries, and may not lead to significant reductions in leakage. A recent proposal is to use the revenues generated from carbon tariffs to finance clean development in the relevant exporting non-Annex I countries. This proposal is evaluated using an energy-economic model of the global economy. The model is supplemented by marginal abatement cost curves and bottom-up information on abatement potentials in order to represent how clean development financing affects emissions reductions. The results indicate that carbon tariffs could raise US$3.5–24.5 billion (with a central value of $9.8 billion) for clean development financing. This could reduce the emissions of non-Annex I countries by 5–15% and still leave funds available for other purposes, such as adaptation. Furthermore, recycling the revenues generated from carbon tariffs back to the exporting country itself could alleviate some of the negative welfare impacts associated with them. However, a net negative impact especially on the welfare and gross domestic product of developing countries would remain.     

US public opinion on climate change issues: implications for consensus-building and policymaking

While the Conference of the Parties wrangle at an international scale with climate policy, a quiet set of policies and measures is being implemented at a local scale by municipalities across the globe. This study examines the motivation municipalities have for undertaking policies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, when the theory of free-ridingwould predict that local administrations should find it difficult to unilaterally reduce their emissions for the benefit of the global climate. Through interviews with officials and/or staff in 23 municipalities in the United States enacting climate policy, data are gathered that suggest local government abatement policies are primarily a top—down decision based on what officials or staff members believe to be “good business” or rational policy choices. They are primarily driven by the potential for realised or perceived cost savings and co-benefits rather than by public pressure. Economic data from some dozen municipal projects are analyzed, finding, while municipalities lack sophisticated accounting techniques, some justification for the often-disputed claim that at least initial reductions in emissions can be made at cost savings. In the United States, with the lack of national abatement policies, it is municipalities that are leading the way in beginning to implement mitigation strategies, even if only for initial reductions.     

Global climate policy: will cities lead the way?

While the Conference of the Parties wrangle at an international scale with climate policy, a quiet set of policies and measures is being implemented at a local scale by municipalities across the globe. This study examines the motivation municipalities have for undertaking policies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, when the theory of free-riding would predict that local administrations should find it difficult to unilaterally reduce their emissions for the benefit of the global climate. Through interviews with officials and/or staff in 23 municipalities in the United States enacting climate policy, data are gathered that suggest local government abatement policies are primarily a top–down decision based on what officials or staff members believe to be “good business” or rational policy choices. They are primarily driven by the potential for realised or perceived cost savings and co-benefits rather than by public pressure. Economic data from some dozen municipal projects are analyzed, finding, while municipalities lack sophisticated accounting techniques, some justification for the often-disputed claim that at least initial reductions in emissions can be made at cost savings. In the United States, with the lack of national abatement policies, it is municipalities that are leading the way in beginning to implement mitigation strategies, even if only for initial reductions.     

Climate or development: is ODA diverted from its original purpose?

We analyze the interaction of climate and development policy that has taken place since the early 1990s. Increasing dissatisfaction about the results of traditional development cooperation and the appeal of climate policy as a new policy field led to a rapid reorientation of aid flows. At the turn of the century, over 7% of aid flows were spent on greenhouse gas emissions mitigation. However, the contribution of emissions mitigation projects to the central development objective of poverty reduction as specified in the Millennium Development Goals is limited and other project types are likely to be much more effective. Adaptation to climate change can be expected to have higher synergies with poverty alleviation than mitigation, primarily through its impact on health, the conservation of arable land and the protection against natural disasters. An analysis of the Clean Development Mechanism shows that projects addressing the poor directly are very rare; even small renewable energy projects in rural areas tend to benefit rich farmers and the urban population. Use of development aid for CDM projects and / or their preparation via capacity building is thus clearly not warranted. We further analyze whether the use of development aid for climate policy could be justified as a countermeasure against the emission increase related to successful development itself. However, countries that are achieving an improvement of human development from a low level are unlikely to increase their energy consumption substantially. Only at a level where the middle class expands rapidly, energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions soar. Thus targeting middle class energy consumption by appliance efficiency standards and public transport-friendly urban planning are the most effective measures to address developing country emissions. Rural renewable energy provision in poor countries has a much higher impact on poverty, but a much lower impact on greenhouse gas emissions. We conclude that while there are valid reasons for long-term collaboration with emerging economies on greenhouse gas mitigation, there should be a separate budget line for such activities to avoid “obfuscation” of a decline of resources aimed at poverty alleviation. Nevertheless, mitigation will remain attractive for donors because it ensures quick disbursements and relatively simple measures of success. Moreover, mitigation activities in developing countries provide politicians in industrialized countries with a welcome strategy to divert the attention of their constituencies from the lack of success in reducing greenhouse gas emissions domestically.     

Marginal abatement cost curves and the quality of emission reductions: a case study on Brazil

Decision makers facing emission-reduction targets need to decide which abatement measures to implement, and in which order. This article investigates how marginal abatement cost (MAC) curves can inform such a decision. We re-analyse a MAC curve built for Brazil by 2030, and show that misinterpreting MAC curves as abatement supply curves can lead to suboptimal strategies. It would lead to (1) under-investment in expensive, long-to-implement and large-potential options, such as clean transportation infrastructure, and (2) over-investment in cheap but limited-potential options such as energy-efficiency improvement in refineries. To mitigate this issue, the article proposes a new graphical representation of MAC curves that explicitly renders the time required to implement each measure.

Policy relevance

In addition to the cost and potential of available options, designing optimal short-term policies requires information on long-term targets (e.g. halving emissions by 2050) and on the speed at which measures can deliver emission reductions. Mitigation policies are thus best investigated in a dynamic framework, building on sector-scale pathways to long-term targets. Climate policies should seek both quantity and quality of abatement, by combining two approaches: a ‘synergy approach’ that focuses on the cheapest mitigation options and maximizes co-benefits, and an ‘urgency approach’ that starts from a long-term objective and works backward to identify actions that need to be implemented early. Accordingly, sector-specific policies may be used (1) to remove implementation barriers on negative- and low-cost options and (2) to ensure short-term targets are met with abatement of sufficient quality. Indeed, such policies can avoid under-investment in the long-to-implement options required to reach long-term targets, which are otherwise difficult to enforce.     

Greenhouse gas mitigation in Chinese agriculture: Distinguishing technical and economic potentials

China is now the world's biggest annual emitter of greenhouse gases with 7467 million tons (Mt) carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) in 2005, with agriculture accounting for 11% of this total. As elsewhere, agricultural emissions mitigation policy in China faces a range of challenges due to the biophysical complexity and heterogeneity of farming systems, as well as other socioeconomic barriers. Existing research has contributed to improving our understanding of the technical potential of mitigation measures in this sector (i.e. what works). But for policy purposes it is important to convert these measures into a feasible economic potential, which provides a perspective on whether agricultural emissions reduction (measures) are low cost relative to mitigation measures and overall potential offered by other sectors of the economy. We develop a bottom-up marginal abatement cost curve (MACC) representing the cost of mitigation measures applicable in addition to business-as-usual agricultural practices. The MACC results demonstrate that while the sector offers a maximum technical potential of 402 MtCO₂e in 2020, a reduction of 135 MtCO₂e is potentially available at zero or negative cost (i.e. a cost saving), and 176 MtCO₂e (approximately 44% of the total) can be abated at a cost below a threshold carbon price ≤¥ 100 (approximately €12) per tCO₂e. Our findings highlight the relative cost effectiveness of nitrogen fertilizer and manure best management practices, and animal breeding practices. We outline the assumptions underlying MACC construction and discuss some scientific, socioeconomic and institutional barriers to realizing the indicated levels of mitigation.     

Proposal for a poverty-adaptation-mitigation window within the Green Climate Fund

The stakes for alleviating poverty and avoiding unbridled climate change are inextricably linked. Climate change impacts will slow down and may even reverse trends in poverty reduction. The pathways consistent with global warming of no more than 2?°C require strategies for poverty alleviation to make allowance for the constraint of low-carbon development. Existing climate funds have failed to target poverty alleviation as a high-priority strategy for adaptation or as a component of low-carbon development. This article proposes a funding window as part of the Green Climate Fund in order to foster synergies targeting greater satisfaction of basic needs, while making allowance for adaptation and mitigation. This financial mechanism is based on indicators of the satisfaction of basic needs and could respond to the claims of the developing countries, which see alleviating poverty as the first priority in climate negotiations. It defines a country continuum, given that there are poor people everywhere; all developing countries are therefore eligible with a mechanism of this sort.

Policy relevance

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calls for substantial emissions reductions and adaptation strategies over the next decades to reduce the high risks of severe impacts of climate change over the 21st century. Industrialized countries and developing countries alike recognize the need to mitigate climate change and to adapt to it. But they face many challenges that lead to an ‘emissions gap’ between an emissions level consistent with the 2?°C increase limit and the voluntary pledges that they have made thus far in the climate negotiations (United Nations Environment Programme. (2014). The Emissions Gap Report 2014. A UNEP synthesis report). In this arena, many developing countries underline that their first domestic priority is the satisfaction of basic needs. In the run-up to the next climate negotiations at the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP 21) in Paris, the proposed poverty-adaptation-mitigation funding window could contribute to alleviate the conflict between development and climate goals in developing countries. In this sense, it could spur developing countries to integrate more ambitious emissions limitations pledges into their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions. This could in turn entice industrialized countries to act similarly. In the end, it could pave the way to an ambitious climate agreement in Paris at COP 21.     

Implications of alternative metrics for global mitigation costs and greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture

100-year Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) are used almost universally to compare emissions of greenhouse gases in national inventories and reduction targets. GWPs have been criticised on several grounds, but little work has been done to determine global mitigation costs under alternative physics-based metrics . We used the integrated assessment model MESSAGE to compare emission pathways and abatement costs for fixed and time-dependent variants of the Global Temperature Change Potential (GTP) with those based on GWPs, for a policy goal of limiting the radiative forcing to a specified level in the year 2100. We find that fixed 100-year GTPs would increase global abatement costs (discounted and aggregated over the 21^st century) under this policy goal by 5–20 % relative to 100-year GWPs, whereas time-varying GTPs would reduce costs by about 5 %. These cost differences are smaller than differences arising from alternative assumptions regarding agricultural mitigation potential and much smaller than those arising from alternative radiative forcing targets. Using the land-use model GLOBIOM, we show that alternative metrics affect food production differently in different world regions depending on regional characteristics of future land-use change to meet growing food demand. We conclude that under scenarios of complete participation, the choice of metric has a limited impact on global abatement costs but could be important for the political economy of regional and sectoral participation in collective mitigation efforts, in particular changing costs and gains over time for agriculture and energy-intensive sectors.     

Does the CDM discourage emission reduction targets in advanced developing countries?

Under the Kyoto Protocol, developing countries can voluntarily participate in climate change mitigation through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), in which industrialized countries, in order to meet their mitigation commitments, can buy emission reduction credits from projects in developing countries. Before its implementation, developing-country experts opposed the CDM, arguing that it would sell-off their countries’ cheapest emission reduction options and force them to invest in more expensive measures to meet their future reduction targets. This ‘low-hanging fruit’ argument is analysed empirically by comparing marginal abatement cost curves. Emissions abatement costs and potentials for CDM projects are estimated for different technologies in eight countries, using capital budgeting tools and information from project documentation. It is found that the CDM is not yet capturing a large portion of the identified abatement potential in most countries. Although the costs of most emissions reduction opportunities grasped are below the average credit price, there are still plenty of available low-cost opportunities. Mexico and Argentina appear to use the CDM predominantly for harvesting the low-hanging fruit, whereas in the other countries more expensive projects are accessing the CDM. This evidence at first sight challenges the low-hanging fruit claim, but needs to be understood in the light of the barriers for the adoption of low-cost abatement options.     

气候变化国家评估报告（Ⅲ）：中国应对气候变化对策的综合评价

 回顾了国际社会应对气候变化的进程，对国内外的碳排放状况、中国减缓碳排放的技术潜力、中国减缓碳排放的宏观影响、全球减缓气候变化的公平性与国际合作行动等问题进行了分析与评估。提出了中国减缓气候变化的思路与对策，指出在全球应对气候变化的形势下，中国要积极适应国际政治、经济及贸易格局变动的趋势，将减缓气候变化对策纳入国家经济与社会发展战略与规划之中，促进国家经济和社会的全面、协调和可持续发展。     

Marginal abatement cost curves: a call for caution

Legal commitments to reduce CO₂ emissions require policy makers to find cost-efficient means to meet these obligations. Marginal abatement cost (MAC) curves, which illustrate the economics associated with climate change mitigation, have recently attracted a great amount of attention. A number of limitations with MAC curves are explained by the implication they should be just one tool in a broader set of decision-making aids used in assessing climate policy. MAC curves, for example, omit ancillary benefits of greenhouse gas emission abatement, treat uncertainty in a limited manner, exclude intertemporal dynamics and lack the necessary transparency concerning their assumptions. MAC curves based on the individual assessment of abatement measures suffer from additional shortcomings such as the non-consideration of interactions and non-financial costs, a possibly inconsistent baseline, double counting and limited treatment of behavioural aspects. Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation exhibit many of the above-mentioned problems, making it particularly difficult to capture in a cost curve. Policy makers should therefore be cautious when interpreting MAC curves, pay attention to the underlying assumptions, consider non-financial costs and be aware of the important uncertainties and underlying path dependencies.     

A GCM study of future climate response to aerosol pollution reductions

We use the global atmospheric GCM aerosol model ECHAM5-HAM to asses possible impacts of future air pollution mitigation strategies on climate. Air quality control strategies focus on the reduction of aerosol emissions. Here we investigate the extreme case of a maximum feasible end-of-pipe abatement of aerosols in the near term future (2030) in combination with increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations. The temperature response of increasing GHG concentrations and reduced aerosol emissions leads to a global annual mean equilibrium temperature response of 2.18 K. When aerosols are maximally abated only in the Industry and Powerplant sector, while other sectors stay with currently enforced regulations, the temperature response is 1.89 K. A maximum feasible abatement applied in the Domestic and Transport sector, while other sectors remain with the current legislation, leads to a temperature response of 1.39 K. Increasing GHG concentrations alone lead to a temperature response of 1.20 K. We also simulate 2–5% increases in global mean precipitation among all scenarios considered, and the hydrological sensitivity is found to be significantly higher for aerosols than for GHGs. Our study, thus highlights the huge potential impact of future air pollution mitigation strategies on climate and supports the need for urgent GHG emission reductions. GHG and aerosol forcings are not independent as both affect and are influenced by changes in the hydrological cycle. However, within the given range of changes in aerosol emissions and GHG concentrations considered in this study, the climate response towards increasing GHG concentrations and decreasing aerosols emissions is additive.     

Climate Strategy with Co2 Capture from the Air

It is physically possible to capture CO₂ directly from the air and immobilize it in geological structures. Air capture differs from conventional mitigation in three key aspects. First, it removes emissions from any part of the economy with equal ease or difficulty, so its cost provides an absolute cap on the cost of mitigation. Second, it permits reduction in concentrations faster than the natural carbon cycle: the effects of irreversibility are thus partly alleviated. Third, because it is weakly coupled to existing energy infrastructure, air capture may offer stronger economies of scale and smaller adjustment costs than the more conventional mitigation technologies. We assess the ultimate physical limits on the amount of energy and land required for air capture and describe two systems that might achieve air capture at prices under 200 and 500 $/tC using current technology. Like geoengineering, air capture limits the cost of a worst-case climate scenario. In an optimal sequential decision framework with uncertainty, existence of air capture decreases the need for near-term precautionary abatement. The long-term effect is the opposite; assuming that marginal costs of mitigation decrease with time while marginal climate change damages increase, then air capture increases long-run abatement. Air capture produces an environmental Kuznets curve, in which concentrations are returned to preindustrial levels.     

Unleakable carbon†

Unleakable carbon, or the uncombusted methane and carbon dioxide associated with fossil fuel systems, constitutes a potentially large and heretofore unrecognized factor in determining use of Earth’s remaining fossil fuel reserves. Advances in extraction technology have encouraged a shift to natural gas, but the advantage of fuel switching depends strongly on mitigating current levels of unleakable carbon, which can be substantial enough to offset any climate benefit relative to oil or coal. To illustrate the potential warming effect of methane emissions associated with utilizable portions of our remaining natural gas reserves, we use recent data published in peer-reviewed journals to roughly estimate the impact of these emissions. We demonstrate that unless unleakable carbon is curtailed, up to 59–81% of our global natural gas reserves must remain underground if we hope to limit warming to 2°C from 2010 to 2050. Successful climate change mitigation depends on improved quantification of current levels of unleakable carbon and a determination of acceptable levels of these emissions within the context of international climate change agreements.

Policy relevance

It is imperative that companies, investors, and world leaders considering capital expenditures and policies towards continued investment in natural gas fuels do so with a complete understanding of how dependent the ultimate climate benefits are upon increased regulation of unleakable carbon, the uncombusted carbon-based gases associated with fossil fuel systems, otherwise referred to as ‘fugitive’, ‘leaked’, ‘vented’, ‘flared’, or ‘unintended’ emissions. Continued focus on combustion emissions alone, or unburnable carbon, undermines the importance of assessing the full climate impacts of fossil fuels, leading many stakeholders to support near-term mitigation strategies that rely on fuel switching from coal and oil to cleaner burning natural gas. The current lack of transparent accounting of unleakable carbon represents a significant gap in the understanding of what portions of the Earth’s remaining global fossil fuel reserves can be utilized while still limiting global warming to 2°C. Successful climate change mitigation requires that stakeholders confront the issue of both unburnable and unleakable carbon when considering continued investment in and potential expansion of natural gas systems as part of a climate change solution.     

气候变化国家评估报告(Ⅲ):中国应对气候变化对策的综合评价

Climate change is increasingly becoming the hotspot issue of global attention. On the basis of review of the process responding to climate change of international community, this paper introduces the status of carbon emissions of the world and China, and the technology potential for China to mitigate carbon emissions. At the same time, this paper explores the macro-impacts of China's mitigation of carbon emissions, the equity of global mitigation of climate change, and the impacts of international cooperation in the field of climate change. Furthermore, this paper puts forward the ideas and countermeasures of mitigating climate change in China, indicating that China should positively adapt to the trends of international politics, economy and trade pattern changes and bring the strategies of mitigating climate change into national social and economic development strategy, planning to promote comprehensive, coordinated and sustainable development of national economy and society under the situation of global response to climate change.     

Developing carbon budgets for UK agriculture, land-use, land-use change and forestry out to 2022

This paper derives a notional future carbon budget for UK agriculture, land use, land use change and forestry sectors (ALULUCF). The budget is based on a bottom-up marginal abatement cost curve (MACC) derived for a range of mitigation measures for specified adoption scenarios for the years 2012, 2017 and 2022. The results indicate that in 2022 around 6.36 MtCO₂e could be abated at negative or zero cost. Furthermore, in the same year, over 17% of agricultural GHG emissions (7.85 MtCO₂e) could be abated at a cost of less than the 2022 Shadow Price of Carbon (£34 (tCO₂e)^???1). The development of robust MACCs faces a range of methodological hurdles that complicate cost-effectiveness appraisal in ALULUCF relative to other sectors. Nevertheless, the current analysis provides an initial route map of efficient measures for mitigation in UK agriculture.     

The global carbon market-mechanism landscape: pre and post 2020 perspectives

With market-mechanisms likely to achieve emission reductions at lower cost than alternative approaches, there is a presumption that they will be embraced by those who are serious about achieving ambitious reductions. Two broad messages exist; there is already considerable activity and some ambition in many parts of the world – a fragmented but embryonic ‘global’ trading landscape is emerging – and there are efforts at UN level to provide a unifying framework for these bottom-up developments. The topography of interest and response varies considerably across groups of countries, and there have been delays in making progress on a unifying framework. This article analyses the current carbon market landscape in terms of market dynamics and market-mechanism developments whilst undertaking an examination of how climate change negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is shaping the future carbon market landscape. This work shows that the combination of existing, emerging, and potential carbon market-mechanisms can be regarded as an emerging pre-2020 fragmented ‘global’ carbon market landscape based on differing bottom-up market based approaches. One outcome of a 2015 Climate Agreement could be a post-2020 global carbon market which would include new domestic and international market initiatives such as the Framework for Various Approaches and New Market Mechanism, together with reformed Kyoto mechanisms.

Policy relevance

With the 2015 Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) expected to see Parties commit to ambitious mitigation commitments, post-2020 could see significant Party (& industry) investment in market-mechanisms and associated emissions units in an effort to achieve some of the abatement cost minimization offered by market approaches. This article is written for those who have an interest in understanding what is happening – and what is not happening – as regards the emergence of market-related approaches to GHG mitigation globally in the run up to the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP) of the UNFCCC which meets in Paris in December 2015, and what could be the shape of things to come post-2020.     

Circumspection, reciprocity, and optimal carbon prices

Assessments of the benefits of climate change mitigation—and thus of the appropriate stringency of greenhouse gas emissions abatement—depend upon ethical, legal, and political economic considerations. Global climate change mitigation is often represented as a repeated prisoners’ dilemma in which the net benefits of sustained global cooperation exceed the net benefits of uncooperative unilateral action for any given actor. Global cooperation can be motivated either by circumspection—a decision to account for the damages one’s own actions inflict upon others—or by the expectation of reciprocity from others. If the marginal global benefits of abatement are approximately constant in total abatement, the domestically optimal price approaches the global cooperative optimum linearly with increasing circumspection and reciprocity. Approximately constant marginal benefits are expected if climate damages are quadratic in temperature and if the airborne fraction of carbon emissions is constant. If, on the other hand, damages increase with temperature faster than quadratically or carbon sinks weaken significantly with increasing CO₂ concentrations, marginal benefits will decline with abatement. In this case, the approach to the global optimum is concave and less than full circumspection and/or reciprocity can lead to optimal domestic abatement close to the global optimum.     

An Issue of Permanence: Assessing the Effectiveness of Temporary Carbon Storage

In this paper, we present a method to quantify the effectiveness of carbon mitigation options taking into account the `permanence' of the emissions reduction. While the issue of permanence is most commonly associated with a `leaky' carbon sequestration reservoir, we argue that this is an issue that applies to just about all carbon mitigation options. The appropriate formulation of this problem is to ask `what is the value of temporary storage?' Valuing temporary storage can be represented as a familiar economic problem, with explicitly stated assumptions about carbon prices and the discount rate. To illustrate the methodology, we calculate the sequestration effectiveness for injecting CO₂ at various depths in the ocean. Analysis is performed for three limiting carbon price assumptions: constant carbon prices (assumes constant marginal damages), carbon prices rise at the discount rate (assumes efficient allocation of a cumulative emissions cap without a backstop technology), and carbon prices first rise at the discount rate but become constant after a given time (assumes introduction of a backstop technology). Our results show that the value of relatively deep ocean carbon sequestration can be nearly equivalent to permanent sequestration if marginal damages (i.e., carbon prices) remain constant or if there is a backstop technology that caps the abatement cost in the not too distant future. On the other hand, if climate damages are such as to require a fixed cumulative emissions limit and there is no backstop, then a storage option with even very slow leakage has limited value relative to a permanent storage option.