Climatic Change

, Volume 88, Issue 3–4, pp 293–308 | Cite as

Uncertainty and learning: implications for the trade-off between short-lived and long-lived greenhouse gases

  • Daniel J. A. Johansson
  • U. Martin Persson
  • Christian Azar
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

The economic benefits of a multi-gas approach to climate change mitigation are clear. However, there is still a debate on how to make the trade-off between different greenhouse gases (GHGs). The trade-off debate has mainly centered on the use of Global Warming Potentials (GWPs), governing the trade-off under the Kyoto Protocol, with results showing that the cost-effective valuation of short-lived GHGs, like methane (CH4), should be lower than its current GWP value if the ultimate aim is to stabilize the anthropogenic temperature change. However, contrary to this, there have also been proposals that early mitigation mainly should be targeted on short-lived GHGs. In this paper we analyze the cost-effective trade-off between a short-lived GHG, CH4, and a long-lived GHG, carbon dioxide (CO2), when a temperature target is to be met, taking into consideration the current uncertainty of the climate sensitivity as well as the likelihood that this will be reduced in the future. The analysis is carried out using an integrated climate and economic model (MiMiC) and the results from this model are explored and explained using a simplified analytical economic model. The main finding is that the introduction of uncertainty and learning about the climate sensitivity increases the near-term cost-effective valuation of CH4 relative to CO2. The larger the uncertainty span, the higher the valuation of the short-lived gas. For an uncertainty span of ±1°C around an expected climate sensitivity of 3°C, CH4 is cost-effectively valued 6.8 times as high as CO2 in year 2005. This is almost twice as high as the valuation in a deterministic case, but still significantly lower than its GWP100 value.

Keywords

Global Warming Potential Climate Sensitivity Abatement Cost Shadow Price Marginal Abatement Cost 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Azar C, Lindgren K (2003) Catastrophic events and stochastic cost-benefit analysis of climate change. Clim Change 56:245–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azar C, Rodhe H (1997) Targets for stabilization of atmospheric CO2. Science 276:1818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bond TC, Sun H (2005) Can reducing black carbon emissions counteract global warming? Environ Sci Technol 39:5921–5926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cubasch U, Meehl GA et al (2001) Projections of future climate change. In: Houghton JT (ed) Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 525–582Google Scholar
  5. Dasgupta PS, Heal GM (1979) Economic theory and exhaustible resources. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  6. DeAngelo B et al (2003) Preliminary mitigation estimates for soil N2O, enteric CH4, rice CH4 and manure CH4 Emissions from major world agricultural regions. Proceedings of the 3rd International Methane and Nitrous Oxide Mitigation ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  7. Ellerman D, Decaux A (1998) Analysis of post-Kyoto CO2 emissions trading using marginal abatement curves. MIT Global Change Joint Program Report Series, No. 40Google Scholar
  8. EU (European Union) (2005) Council of the European Union, Presidency Conclusions, March 22–23. Available at http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/84335.pdf
  9. Fuglestvedt JS, Berntsen TK, Godal O et al (2003) Metrics of climate change: assessing radiative forcing and climate indices. Clim Change 58:251–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Graßl H, Kokott J, Kulessa M et al (2003) Climate protection strategies for the 21st century: Kyoto and beyond. Report prepared by the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU), Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  11. Ha-Duong M, Grubb MJ, Hourcade J-C (1997) Influence of socioeconomic inertia and uncertainty on optimal CO2-emission abatement. Nature 390:270–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hansen JE, Sato M (2004) Greenhouse gas growth rates. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101:16109–16114. Supporting material available online at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/0406982101/DC1 Google Scholar
  13. Hansen J, Sato M, Ruedy R, Lacis A, Oinas V (2000) Global warming in the twenty-first century: an alternative scenario. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 97:9875–9880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harvey LLD, Gregory J, Hoffert M et al (1997) An introduction to simple climate models used in the IPCC second assessment report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Technical Paper IIGoogle Scholar
  15. Hayhoe K (1999) Costs of multi-greenhouse gas reduction targets for the USA. Science 286:905–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Houghton JT et al (eds) (2001) Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. IPCC (1992) 1992 IPCC Supplement. In: Houghton JT, Callander BA, Varney SK (eds) 1992 IPCC supplement. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  18. Jacobsson MZ (2002) Control of fossil-fuel particulate black carbon and organic matter, possibly the most effective method of slowing global warming. J Geophys Res 107(D19):4410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johansson DJA, Persson UM, Azar C (2005) Trade-off between CO2 and CH4 under conditions of uncertainty, learning and inertia. 4th International Symposium on Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases (NGCC-4), Utrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  20. Johansson DJA, Persson UM, Azar C (2006) The cost of using global warming potentials – analysing the trade off between CO2, CH4 and N2O. Clim Change 77:291–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kimball MS (1990) Precautionary saving in the small and in the large. Econometrica 58:53–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kolstad CD (1994) George Bush versus Al Gore. Energy Policy 22:771–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Manne AS, Richels RG (1992) Buying greenhouse insurance: the economic costs of CO2 emission limits. Cambridge, MA, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  24. Manne AS, Richels RG (2001) An Alterative approach to establishing trade-offs among green-house gases. Nature 410:675–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Met-Office (2005) Annual land air and sea surface temperature anomalies: GLOBE 1861–2003. Available at http://www.met-office.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/CR_data/Annual/land+sst_web.txt. Accessed April 5, 2005
  26. Michaelis P (1992) Global warming: efficient policies in the case of multiple pollutants. Environ Resour Econ 2(1):61–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Murphy JM, Sexton DMH, Barnett DN, Jones GS, Webb MJ, Collins M (2004) Quantification of modelling uncertainties in a large ensemble of climate change simulations. Nature 430(7001):768–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. NASA and Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) (2005) Climate forcings in GISS model E. Available at http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/simodel/. Accessed April 18, 2005
  29. Nordhaus WD (1994) Managing the global commons: the economics of climate change. MIT Press, MIT, USAGoogle Scholar
  30. O’Neill BC (2000) The jury is still out on global warming potentials. Clim Change 44:427–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. O’Neill BC (2003) Economics, natural science, and the costs of global warming potentials. Clim Change 58:251–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Prather M, Ehhalt D et al (2001) Atmospheric chemistry and greenhouse gases. In: Houghton JT (ed) Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 239–288Google Scholar
  33. Ramaswamy V (2001) Radiative forcing of climate change. In: Houghton JT (ed) Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 349–416Google Scholar
  34. Reilly JM (1999) Multi-gas assessment of the Kyoto protocol. Nature 401:549–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reilly JM, Mayer M, Harnisch J (2002) The Kyoto protocol and non-CO2 greenhouse gases and carbon sinks. Environ Model Assess 7:217–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rothschild M, Stieglitz JE (1970) Increasing risk: I. A definition. J Econ Theory 2:225–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rothschild M, Stieglitz JE (1971) Increasing risk II: its economic consequences. J Econ Theory 3:66–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schimel D, Alves D, Enting I et al (1996) Radiative forcing of climate change. In: Houghton JT (ed) Climate change 1995: the science of climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 65–132Google Scholar
  39. Schneider SH, Thompson SL (1981) Atmospheric CO2 and climate: importance of the transient response. J Geophys Res 86:3135–3147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stern DI (2005) Global sulfur emissions from 1850 to 2000. Chemosphere 58:163–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ulph A, Ulph D (1997) Global warming, irreversibility and learning. Econ J 107:636–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. US EPA (2004) International methane and nitrous oxide emissions and mitigation data. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ghginfo/reports/methaneappend.htm
  43. van Vuuren DP, Weyant J, de la Chesnaye F (2006) Multi-gas scenarios to stabilize radiative forcing. Energy Econ 28(1):102–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Webster M (2002) The curious role of “learning” in climate policy: should we wait for more data? Energy J 23(2):97–119Google Scholar
  45. Wigley TML, Smith SJ, Prather MJ (2002) Radiative forcing due to reactive gas emissions. J Climate 15:2690–2696CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel J. A. Johansson
    • 1
  • U. Martin Persson
    • 1
  • Christian Azar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Physical Resource TheoryChalmers University of TechnologyGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations