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.     

Management Strategies to Sequester Carbon in Agricultural Soils and to Mitigate Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Carbon sequestration in agricultural soils is frequently promoted as a practical solution for slowing down the rate of increase of CO₂ in the atmosphere. Consequently, there is a need to improve our understanding of how land management practices may affect the net removal of greenhouse gases (GHG) from the atmosphere. In this paper we examine the role of agriculture in influencing the GHG budget and briefly discuss the potential for carbon mitigation by agriculture. We also examine the opportunities that exist for increasing soil C sequestration using management practices such as reduced tillage, reduced frequency of summer fallowing, introduction of forage crops into crop rotations, conversion of cropland to grassland and nutrient addition via fertilization. In order to provide information on the impact of such management practices on the net GHG budget we ran simulations using CENTURY (a C model) and DNDC (a N model) for five locations across Canada, for a 30-yr time period. These simulations provide information on the potential trade-off between C sequestration and increased N₂O emissions. Our model output suggests that conversion of cropland to grassland will result in the largest reduction in net GHG emissions, while nutrient additions via fertilizers will result in a small increase in GHG emissions. Simulations with the CENTURY model also indicated that favorable growing conditions during the last 15 yr could account for an increase of 6% in the soil C at a site in Lethbridge, Alberta. Presented at the International Workshop on Reducing Vulnerability of Agriculture and Forestry to Climate Variability and Climate Change, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 7–9 October 2002.     

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.     

Carbon prices and greenhouse gases abatement from agriculture,forestry and land use in Nepal

The Agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU) sector as a whole accounts for more than 80% of the total greenhouse gas (GHG) emission in Nepal. This study estimates the GHG emissions from the AFOLU sector in the business as usual (BAU) case during 2010–2050 and identifies the economically attractive countermeasures to abate GHG emissions from the sector at different carbon prices. It also estimates the carbon price elasticity of GHG abatement from the sector. The study finds that enteric fermentation processes in the livestock and emissions from agricultural soils are the two major contributors of GHG emission in AFOLU sector. It identifies no-regret abatement options in the AFOLU sector that could mitigate about 41.5% of the total GHG emission during 2016–2050 in the BAU scenario. There would be a net cumulative carbon sequestration of 16 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO₂e) at $10 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO₂e) during the period. Carbon price above $75/tCO₂e is not found to be much effective in achieving significant additional reduction in GHG emissions from the AFOLU sector.     

National contributions to climate change mitigation from agriculture: allocating a global target

Globally, agriculture and related land use change contributed about 17% of the world’s anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2010 (8.4 GtCO₂e yr^?1), making GHG mitigation in the agriculture sector critical to meeting the Paris Agreement’s 2°C goal. This article proposes a range of country-level targets for mitigation of agricultural emissions by allocating a global target according to five approaches to effort-sharing for climate change mitigation: responsibility, capability, equality, responsibility-capability-need and equal cumulative per capita emissions. Allocating mitigation targets according to responsibility for total historical emissions or capability to mitigate assigned large targets for agricultural emission reductions to North America, Europe and China. Targets based on responsibility for historical agricultural emissions resulted in a relatively even distribution of targets among countries and regions. Meanwhile, targets based on equal future agricultural emissions per capita or equal per capita cumulative emissions assigned very large mitigation targets to countries with large agricultural economies, while allowing some densely populated countries to increase agricultural emissions. There is no single ‘correct’ framework for allocating a global mitigation goal. Instead, using these approaches as a set provides a transparent, scientific basis for countries to inform and help assess the significance of their commitments to reducing emissions from the agriculture sector.

Key policy insights

• Meeting the Paris Agreement 2°C goal will require global mitigation of agricultural non-CO₂ emissions of approximately 1 GtCO₂e yr^?1 by 2030.

• Allocating this 1 GtCO₂e yr^?1 according to various effort-sharing approaches, it is found that countries will need to mitigate agricultural business-as-usual emissions in 2030 by a median of 10%. Targets vary widely with criteria used for allocation.

• The targets calculated here are in line with the ambition of the few countries (primarily in Africa) that included mitigation targets for the agriculture sector in their (Intended) Nationally Determined Contributions.

• For agriculture to contribute to meeting the 2°C or 1.5°C targets, countries will need to be ambitious in pursuing emission reductions. Technology development and transfer will be particularly important.

     

The importance of health co-benefits in macroeconomic assessments of UK Greenhouse Gas emission reduction strategies

We employ a single-country dynamically-recursive Computable General Equilibrium model to make health-focussed macroeconomic assessments of three contingent UK Greenhouse Gas (GHG) mitigation strategies, designed to achieve 2030 emission targets as suggested by the UK Committee on Climate Change. In contrast to previous assessment studies, our main focus is on health co-benefits additional to those from reduced local air pollution. We employ a conservative cost-effectiveness methodology with a zero net cost threshold. Our urban transport strategy (with cleaner vehicles and increased active travel) brings important health co-benefits and is likely to be strongly cost-effective; our food and agriculture strategy (based on abatement technologies and reduction in livestock production) brings worthwhile health co-benefits, but is unlikely to eliminate net costs unless new technological measures are included; our household energy efficiency strategy is likely to breakeven only over the long term after the investment programme has ceased (beyond our 20 year time horizon). We conclude that UK policy makers will, most likely, have to adopt elements which involve initial net societal costs in order to achieve future emission targets and longer-term benefits from GHG reduction. Cost-effectiveness of GHG strategies is likely to require technological mitigation interventions and/or demand-constraining interventions with important health co-benefits and other efficiency-enhancing policies that promote internalization of externalities. Health co-benefits can play a crucial role in bringing down net costs, but our results also suggest the need for adopting holistic assessment methodologies which give proper consideration to welfare-improving health co-benefits with potentially negative economic repercussions (such as increased longevity).     

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.     

Integrating agriculture and energy to assess GHG emissions reduction: a methodological approach

Agriculture is responsible for approximately 25% of anthropogenic global GHG emissions. This significant share highlights the fundamental importance of the agricultural sector in the global GHG emissions reduction challenge. This article develops and tests a methodology for the integration of agricultural and energy systems modelling. The goal of the research is to extend an energy systems modelling approach to agriculture in order to provide richer insights into the dynamics and interactions between the two (e.g. in competition for land-use). We build Agri-TIMES, an agricultural systems module using the TIMES energy systems modelling framework, to model the effect of livestock emissions and explore emissions reduction options. The research focuses on Ireland, which is an interesting test case for two reasons: first, agriculture currently accounts for about 30% of Ireland's GHG emissions, significantly higher than other industrialized countries yet comparable with global levels (here including emissions associated with other land-use change and forestation); second, Ireland is both a complete and reasonably sized agricultural system to act as a test case for this new approach. This article describes the methodology used, the data requirements, and technical assumptions made to facilitate the modelling. It also presents results to illustrate the approach and provide associated initial insights.

Policy relevance

Most of the policy focus with regard to climate mitigation targets has been on reducing energy-related CO₂ emissions, which is understandable as they represent by far the largest source of emissions. Non-energy-related GHG emissions – largely from agriculture, industrial processes, and waste – have received significantly less attention in policy discourse. Going forward, however, if significant cuts are made in energy-related CO₂ emissions, the role of non-energy-related GHG emissions will grow in importance. It is therefore crucial that climate mitigation analyses and strategies are not limited to the energy system. This article shows the value of using integrated energy and agriculture techno-economic modelling techniques to draw evidence for new comprehensive climate policy strategies able to discern between the full range of technical solutions available. It enables the production of economy-wide least-cost climate mitigation pathways.     

Water Quality Co-Effects of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in U.S. Agriculture

This study develops first-order estimates of water quality co-effects of terrestrial greenhouse gas (GHG) emission offset strategies in U.S. agriculture by linking a national level agricultural sector model (ASMGHG) to a national level water quality model (NWPCAM). The simulated policy scenario considers GHG mitigation incentive payments of $25 and $50 per tonne, carbon equivalent to landowners for reducing emissions or enhancing the sequestration of GHG through agricultural and land-use practices. ASMGHG projects that these GHG price incentives could induce widespread conversion of agricultural to forested lands, along with alteration of tillage practices, crop mix on land remaining in agriculture, and livestock management. This study focuses on changes in cropland use and management. The results indicate that through agricultural cropland about 60 to 70 million tonnes of carbon equivalent (MMTCE) emissions can be mitigated annually in the U.S. These responses also lead to a 2% increase in aggregate national water quality, with substantial variation across regions. Such GHG mitigation activities are found to reduce annual nitrogen loadings into the Gulf of Mexico by up to one half of the reduction goals established by the national Watershed Nutrient Task Force for addressing the hypoxia problem.     

Uncertainty of forest carbon stock changes – implications to the total uncertainty of GHG inventory of Finland

Uncertainty analysis facilitates identification of the most important categories affecting greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory uncertainty and helps in prioritisation of the efforts needed for development of the inventory. This paper presents an uncertainty analysis of GHG emissions of all Kyoto sectors and gases for Finland consolidated with estimates of emissions/removals from LULUCF categories. In Finland, net GHG emissions in 2003 were around 69 Tg (±15 Tg) CO₂ equivalents. The uncertainties in forest carbon sink estimates in 2003 were larger than in most other emission categories, but of the same order of magnitude as in carbon stock change estimates in other land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) categories, and in N₂O emissions from agricultural soils. Uncertainties in sink estimates of 1990 were lower, due to better availability of data. Results of this study indicate that inclusion of the forest carbon sink to GHG inventories reported to the UNFCCC increases uncertainties in net emissions notably. However, the decrease in precision is accompanied by an increase in the accuracy of the overall net GHG emissions due to improved completeness of the inventory. The results of this study can be utilised when planning future GHG mitigation protocols and emission trading schemes and when analysing environmental benefits of climate conventions.     

Health co-benefits and the development of climate change mitigation policies in the European Union

The 2015 Paris Agreement requires increasingly ambitious emissions reduction efforts from its member countries. Accounting for ancillary positive health outcomes (health co-benefits) that result from implementing climate change mitigation policies can provide Parties to the Paris Agreement with a sound rationale for introducing stronger mitigation strategies. Despite this recognition, a knowledge gap exists on the role of health co-benefits in the development of climate change mitigation policies. To address this gap, the case study presented here investigates the role of health co-benefits in the development of European Union (EU) climate change mitigation policies through analysis and consideration of semi-structured interview data, government documents, journal articles and media releases. We find that while health co-benefits are an explicit consideration in the development of EU climate change mitigation policies, their influence on final policy outcomes has been limited. Our analysis suggests that whilst health co-benefits are a key driver of air pollution mitigation policies, climate mitigation policies are primarily driven by other factors, including economic costs and energy implications.

Key policy insights

• Health co-benefits are quantified and monetized as part of the development of EU climate change mitigation policies but their influence on the final policies agreed upon is limited.

• Barriers, such as the immediate economic costs associated with climate action, inhibit the influence of health co-benefits on the development of mitigation policies.

• Health co-benefits primarily drive the development of EU air pollution mitigation policies.

• The separation of responsibility for GHG and non-GHG emissions across Directorate Generals has decoupled climate change and air pollution mitigation policies, with consequences for the integration of health co-benefits in climate policy.

     

Climate change mitigation scenarios and policies and measures: the case of Kazakhstan

This article illustrates the main difficulties encountered in the preparation of GHG emission projections and climate change mitigation policies and measures (P&M) for Kazakhstan. Difficulties in representing the system with an economic model have been overcome by representing the energy system with a technical-economic growth model (MARKAL-TIMES) based on the stock of existing plants, transformation processes, and end-use devices. GHG emission scenarios depend mainly on the pace of transition in Kazakhstan from a planned economy to a market economy. Three scenarios are portrayed: an incomplete transition, a fast and successful one, and even more advanced participation in global climate change mitigation, including participation in some emission trading schemes. If the transition to a market economy is completed by 2020, P&M already adopted may reduce emissions of CO₂ from combustion by about 85 MtCO₂ by 2030 – 17% of the emissions in the baseline (WOM) scenario. One-third of these reductions are likely to be obtained from the demand sectors, and two-thirds from the supply sectors. If every tonne of CO₂ not emitted is valued up to US$10 in 2020 and $20 in 2030, additional P&M may further reduce emissions by 110 MtCO₂ by 2030.     

The importance of reduced meat and dairy consumption for meeting stringent climate change targets

For agriculture, there are three major options for mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions: 1) productivity improvements, particularly in the livestock sector; 2) dedicated technical mitigation measures; and 3) human dietary changes. The aim of the paper is to estimate long-term agricultural GHG emissions, under different mitigation scenarios, and to relate them to the emissions space compatible with the 2 °C temperature target. Our estimates include emissions up to 2070 from agricultural soils, manure management, enteric fermentation and paddy rice fields, and are based on IPCC Tier 2 methodology. We find that baseline agricultural CO₂-equivalent emissions (using Global Warming Potentials with a 100 year time horizon) will be approximately 13 Gton CO₂eq/year in 2070, compared to 7.1 Gton CO₂eq/year 2000. However, if faster growth in livestock productivity is combined with dedicated technical mitigation measures, emissions may be kept to 7.7 Gton CO₂eq/year in 2070. If structural changes in human diets are included, emissions may be reduced further, to 3–5 Gton CO₂eq/year in 2070. The total annual emissions for meeting the 2 °C target with a chance above 50 % is in the order of 13 Gton CO₂eq/year or less in 2070, for all sectors combined. We conclude that reduced ruminant meat and dairy consumption will be indispensable for reaching the 2 °C target with a high probability, unless unprecedented advances in technology take place.     

Piecemeal or combined? Assessing greenhouse gas mitigation spillovers in US forest and agriculture policy portfolios

ABSTRACT

Forest and agricultural sector response to comprehensive climate policy is well represented in the literature. Less analysis has been devoted to piecemeal solutions. We use the Forest and Agriculture Sector Optimization Model with Greenhouse Gases (FASOMGHG) to project the individual and combined effect of three existing U.S. Department of Agriculture programmes with potential to increase greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation. We find that a combined policy scenario may achieve greater mitigation than individual constituent programmes, suggesting the possibility of complementary spillover effects in some periods. Mitigation varies over time, however, and some periods experience net emissions as markets and management practices respond to initial policy shocks. The regional distribution of GHG mitigation also varies between policy scenario. Differences in the magnitude and imputed cost of mitigation under each scenario, generating negative values for some programmes and time periods, reinforces the need to evaluate portfolio design to cost-effectively achieve near-term GHG mitigation.

Key policy insights

• Increased near-term GHG mitigation in the forest and agriculture sectors in the US may be possible by expanding or refocusing the emphasis of existing programmes.

• Implementing several such forest and agricultural programmes simultaneously may lead to greater GHG mitigation than when implemented separately, indicating the possibility of positive spillover effects.

• Programmes targeted to agricultural management may hold outsized potential to achieve near-term GHG mitigation; Policies aimed at influencing land use conversion appear to be more vulnerable to reversion and subject to larger inter-annual swings.

• The staged implementation of programmes could also be useful, helping to encourage increased mitigation (or the retention of already achieved mitigation) over time as markets re-equilibrate to initial shocks.

• Though the particular scenarios assessed here are unique to the US, our findings may be applicable to other locations outside the US where land management is influenced by individual market actors and there is competition between forest and agricultural land uses.

     

GHG mitigation of agricultural peatlands requires coherent policies

As soon as peat soil is drained for agricultural production, the peat starts to degrade, which causes emissions to the atmosphere. In countries with large peatland areas, the GHG mitigation potential related to management of these soils is often estimated as the highest amongst the measures available in agriculture. Although the facts are well known, the policies leading to diminished emissions are often difficult to implement. We have analysed the reasons why the mitigation potential is not fully utilized and what could be done better in national implementation of climate policies. Four cases are used to illustrate the necessary steps to reach mitigation targets: determining the amount and properties of peat soils, estimating the potential, costs and feasibility of the mitigation measures, and selecting and implementing the best measures. A common feature for all of the cases was that national and international climate policies have increased the public interest in GHG emissions from peat soils and increased the pressure for mitigation. Basically the same factors restrict the implementation of mitigation measures in all countries with significant peat soil areas. The most important of these is lack of policy coherence, e.g. ignoring climate policies when planning land use or agricultural policies. We conclude that GHG mitigation is achieved only if other policies, especially national regulations and strategies, are in line with climate policies.

Policy relevance

Agricultural peat soils could be used to help reach GHG mitigation goals in many countries, but the full potential of mitigation of peat soils is not used. Although peatland cultivation inevitably leads to loss of the whole peat layer and high emissions, there are few incentives or regulation to effectively minimize these losses. This article discusses the possibilities to reduce GHG emissions from agricultural peat soils, with specific emphasis on the barriers of implementing mitigation measures nationally. The lessons learned from the selected cases emphasize the role of all policy makers and their cooperation in planning coherent policies for achieving the goals determined by climate policies.     

Greenhouse gas taxes on animal food products: rationale, tax scheme and climate mitigation effects

Agriculture is responsible for 25?C30% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions but has thus far been largely exempted from climate policies. Because of high monitoring costs and comparatively low technical potential for emission reductions in the agricultural sector, output taxes on emission-intensive agricultural goods may be an efficient policy instrument to deal with agricultural GHG emissions. In this study we assess the emission mitigation potential of GHG weighted consumption taxes on animal food products in the EU. We also estimate the decrease in agricultural land area through the related changes in food production and the additional mitigation potential in devoting this land to bioenergy production. Estimates are based on a model of food consumption and the related land use and GHG emissions in the EU. Results indicate that agricultural emissions in the EU27 can be reduced by approximately 32 million tons of CO₂-eq with a GHG weighted tax on animal food products corresponding to ?60 per ton CO₂-eq. The effect of the tax is estimated to be six times higher if lignocellulosic crops are grown on the land made available and used to substitute for coal in power generation. Most of the effect of a GHG weighted tax on animal food can be captured by taxing the consumption of ruminant meat alone.     

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.     

A wedge-based approach to estimating health co-benefits of climate change mitigation activities in the United States

While it has been recognized that actions reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can have significant positive and negative impacts on human health through reductions in ambient fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) concentrations, these impacts are rarely taken into account when analyzing specific policies. This study presents a new framework for estimating the change in health outcomes resulting from implementation of specific carbon dioxide (CO₂) reduction activities, allowing comparison of different sectors and options for climate mitigation activities. Our estimates suggest that in the year 2020, the reductions in adverse health outcomes from lessened exposure to PM_2.5 would yield economic benefits in the range of $6 to $30 billion (in 2008 USD), depending on the specific activity. This equates to between $40 and $198 per metric ton of CO₂ in health benefits. Specific climate interventions will vary in the health co-benefits they provide as well as in potential harms that may result from their implementation. Rigorous assessment of these health impacts is essential for guiding policy decisions as efforts to reduce GHG emissions increase in scope and intensity.     

Health and environmental co-benefits and conflicts of actions to meet UK carbon targets

Many actions to reduce GHG emissions have wider impacts on health, the economy, and the environment, beyond their role in mitigating climate change. These ancillary impacts can be positive (co-benefits) or negative (conflicts). This article presents the first quantitative review of the wider impacts on health and the environment likely to arise from action to meet the UK's legally-binding carbon budgets. Impacts were assessed for climate measures directed at power generation, energy use in buildings, and industry, transport, and agriculture. The study considered a wide range of health and environmental impacts including air pollution, noise, the upstream impacts of fuel extraction, and the lifestyle benefits of active travel. It was not possible to quantify all impacts, but for those that were monetized the co-benefits of climate action (i.e. excluding climate benefits) significantly outweigh the negative impacts, with a net present value of more than £85 billion from 2008 to 2030. Substantial benefits arise from reduced congestion, pollution, noise, and road accidents as a result of avoided journeys. There is also a large health benefit as a result of increased exercise from walking and cycling instead of driving. Awareness of these benefits could strengthen the case for more ambitious climate mitigation action.

Policy relevance

This article demonstrates that actions to mitigate GHG emissions have significant wider benefits for health and the environment. Including these impacts in cost–benefit analysis would strengthen the case for the UK (and similar countries) to set ambitious emissions reduction targets. Understanding co-benefits and trade-offs will also improve coordination across policy areas and cut costs. In addition, co-benefits such as air quality improvements are often immediate and local, whereas climate benefits may occur on a longer timescale and mainly in a distant region, as well as being harder to demonstrate. Dissemination of the benefits, along with better anticipation of trade-offs, could therefore boost public support for climate action.     

Spain: words that succeed and climate policies that fail

Abstract

The two project-based Kyoto mechanisms, joint implementation (JI) and the clean development mechanism (CDM), require a determination of the “baseline”, the development of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the absence of the project. This paper examines, whether absolute (given in tCO₂ equivalent) or relative baselines (“benchmarks”, given, e.g. in tCO₂ equivalent/MWh) should be applied for JI/CDM projects in the energy sector. Accuracy of the GHG emission reduction and manageability of GHG emission balances are used as evaluation criteria. The results show that relative baselines are a more accurate instrument for the estimation of emission reductions in JI/CDM projects in the energy sector without posing significant additional risks to the management of GHG emission balances for large entities. In comparison to absolute baselines, relative baselines indicate in a more realistic and conservative manner the amount of emission reductions obtained in the energy system and give more appropriate incentives to project sponsors. The additional risks of relative baselines are likely to be small compared to the normal deviation of the domestic/internal GHG emissions. The findings are in line with the Marrakesh Accords, which set restrictions to application of absolute baselines.