Climatic Change

, Volume 90, Issue 3, pp 243–268 | Cite as

Regional abatement action and costs under allocation schemes for emission allowances for achieving low CO2-equivalent concentrations

  • Michel G. J. den ElzenEmail author
  • Paul L. Lucas
  • Detlef P. van Vuuren


This paper assesses regional abatement action and costs for two scenarios in which atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations stabilise at 450 and 550 ppm CO2-equivalent. It evaluates two allocation schemes: Multi-Stage and Contraction & Convergence. It was found that abatement costs as percentages of GDP vary significantly by region, with high costs for the Middle East and the former Soviet Union, medium costs for the OECD regions and low costs or even gains for (other) developing regions. In addition to the abatement costs they incur, fossil-fuel-exporting regions are also likely to be affected by losses of coal and oil exports while the former Soviet Union and South America could experience increased bio-energy exports. Especially in the former Soviet Union and Asia, non-CO2 abatement options are important in the short term in reducing their emissions. Carbon capture and storage, energy efficiency improvements, bio-energy use and the use of renewables dominate reductions in the long term in all regions. It was found that the regional costs are influenced more by the assumed stabilisation level and baseline scenario than by the allocation regimes explored or the assumptions for different technologies.


Abatement Cost Former Soviet Union Clean Development Mechanism Project Permit Price Emission Allowance 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Azar C, Lindgren K, Larson E, Möllersten K (2006) Carbon capture and storage from fossil fuels and biomass—costs and potential role in stabilizing the atmosphere. Clim Change 74(1–3):47–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartsch U, Müller B (2000) Fossil fuels in a changing climate: impacts of the Kyoto Protocol and developing country participation. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Berk MM, den Elzen MGJ (2001) Options for differentiation of future commitments in climate policy: how to realise timely participation to meet stringent climate goals? Clim Policy 1(4):465–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanchard O (2002) Scenarios for differentiating commitments. In: Baumert KA, Blanchard O, Llose S, and Perkaus JF (eds), Options for protecting the climate. WRI, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  5. Böhringer C, Löschel A (2005) Climate policy beyond Kyoto: Quo Vadis? A computable general equilibrium analysis based on expert judgments. KYKLOS 58(4):467–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bollen JC, Manders AJG, Veenendaal PJJ (2004) How much does a 30% emission reduction cost? Macro-economic effects of post-Kyoto climate policy in 2020. CPB document no. 64, Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  7. Criqui P, Kitous A, Berk MM, den Elzen MGJ, Eickhout B, Lucas P, van Vuuren DP, Kouvaritakis N, Vanregemorter D (2003) Greenhouse gas reduction pathways in the UNFCCC Process up to 2025—technical report. B4-3040/2001/325703/MAR/E.1 for the DG Environment, CNRS-IEPE, Grenoble, FranceGoogle Scholar
  8. de Vries HJM, van Vuuren DP, den Elzen MGJ, Janssen MA (2002) The targets image energy model regional (TIMER)—technical documentation. MNP-report 461502024, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP), Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
  9. den Elzen MGJ, de Moor APG (2002) Evaluating the Bonn–Marrakesh agreement. Clim Policy 2(1):111–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. den Elzen MGJ, Lucas P (2005) The FAIR model: a tool to analyse environmental and costs implications of climate regimes. Environ Model Assess 10(2):115–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. den Elzen MGJ, Meinshausen M (2006) Meeting the EU 2°C climate target: global and regional emission implications. Clim Policy 6:545–564Google Scholar
  12. den Elzen MGJ, van Vuuren DP (2007) Peaking profiles for achieving long-term temperature targets with more likelihood at lower costs. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104(46):17931–17936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. den Elzen MGJ, Lucas P, van Vuuren DP (2005a) Abatement costs of post-Kyoto climate regimes. Energy Policy 33(16):2138–2151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. den Elzen MGJ, Schaeffer M, Lucas P (2005b) Differentiating future commitments on the basis of countries’ relative historical responsibility for climate change: uncertainties in the ‘Brazilian Proposal’ in the context of a policy implementation. Clim Change 71(3):277–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. den Elzen MGJ, Berk MM, Lucas P, Criqui C, Kitous A (2006) Multi-Stage: a rule-based evolution of future commitments under the Climate Change Convention. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 6(1):1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. den Elzen MGJ, Meinshausen M, van Vuuren DP (2007) Multi-gas emission envelopes to meet greenhouse gas concentration targets: costs versus certainty of limiting temperature increase. Glob Environ Change 17(2):260–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. den Elzen MGJ, Höhne N, Moltmann S (2008) The Triptych approach revisited: a staged sectoral approach for climate mitigation. Energy Policy 36(3):1107–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. ECF and PIK (2004) What is dangerous climate change? Initial results of a Symposium on Key Vulnerable Regions, Climate Change and Article 2 of the UNFCCC European Climate Forum and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact ResearchGoogle Scholar
  19. European-Council (1996) Communication on Community Strategy on Climate Change, Council Conclusions. Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  20. Groenenberg H, Blok K, van der Sluijs JP (2004) Global Triptych: a bottom-up approach for the differentiation of commitments under the Climate Convention. Clim Policy 4:153–175Google Scholar
  21. Höhne N, Galleguillos C, Blok K, Harnisch J, Phylipsen D (2003) Evolution of commitments under the UNFCCC: involving newly industrialized countries and developing countries. Research-report 20141255, UBA-FB 000412, ECOFYS Gmbh, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  22. Höhne N, Phylipsen D, Ullrich S, Blok K (2005) Options for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, research report for the German Federal Environmental Agency. Climate Change 02/05, ISSN 1611–8855. Available at, ECOFYS Gmbh, Berlin, Germany
  23. Höhne N, den Elzen MGJ, Weiss M (2006) Common but differentiated convergence (CDC), a new conceptual approach to long-term climate policy. Clim Policy 6(2):181–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoogwijk M, Faaij A, Eickhout B, de Vries HJ, Turkenburg W (2005) Renewables. Biomass Bioenergy 29:225–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. IEA (2004) World energy outlook 2004. International Energy Agency. Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  26. IMAGE-team (2001) The IMAGE 2.2 implementation of the SRES scenarios. A comprehensive analysis of emissions, climate change and impacts in the 21st century. CD-ROM publication 481508018, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP), Bilthoven, the NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  27. IPCC (2001) Climate change 2001. The science of climate change. IPCC assessment reports. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 1–18Google Scholar
  28. Jacoby HD, Schmalensee R, Wing IS (1999) Toward a useful architecture for climate change negotiations. Report no. 49. MIT, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  29. Jotzo F, Michaelowa A (2002) Estimating the CDM market under the Marrakech Accords. Clim Policy 2:179–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lucas P, van Vuuren DP, Olivier JA, den Elzen MGJ (2007) Long-term reduction potential of non-CO2 greenhouse gases. Environ Sci Policy 10(2):85–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mastandrea MD, Schneider SH (2004) Probabilistic integrated assessment of dangerous climate change. Science 304:571–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Meinshausen M (2006) What does a 2°C target mean for greenhouse gas concentrations? A brief analysis based on multi-gas emission pathways and several climate sensitivity uncertainty estimates. In: Schellnhuber HJ, Cramer W, Nakicenovic N, Wigley T, Yohe G (eds) Avoiding dangerous climate change. Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, pp 265–280Google Scholar
  33. Meinshausen M, Hare WL, Wigley TML, van Vuuren DP, den Elzen MGJ, Swart R (2006) Multi-gas emission pathways to meet climate targets. Clim Change 75(1–2):151–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Metz B, Berk MM, den Elzen MGJ, de Vries HJM, van Vuuren DP (2002) Towards an equitable global climate change regime: compatibility with Article 2 of the Climate Change Convention and the link with sustainable development. Clim Policy 2(2–3):211–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Meyer A (2000) Contraction & convergence. The global solution to climate change. Schumacher Briefings, 5. Green Books, Bristol, UKGoogle Scholar
  36. Michaelowa A, Jotzo F (2005) Transaction costs, institutional rigidities and the size of the clean development mechanism. Energy Policy 33(4):511–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Michaelowa A, Stronzik M, Eckermann F, Hunt A (2003) Transaction costs of the Kyoto Mechanisms. Clim Policy 3:261–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Michaelowa A, Butzengeiger S, Jung M (2005) Graduation and deepening: an ambitious post-2012 climate policy scenario. Int Environ Agreem: Polit Law Econ 5:25–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Murphy JM, Sexton DMH, Barnett DN, Jones GS, Webb MJ, Collins M, Stainforth DA (2004) Quantification of modelling uncertainties in a large ensemble of climate change simulations. Nature 430:768–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nabuurs GJ, Masera O (2007) Forestry. In: Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA (eds) Climate change 2007: mitigation. Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  41. Nakicenovic N, Riahi K (2003) Model runs with MESSAGE in the context of the further development of the Kyoto-Protocol, WBGU—German Advisory Council on Global Change. WBGU website,, Berlin, Germany
  42. O’Neill BC, Oppenheimer M (2002) Climate change: dangerous climate impacts and the Kyoto protocol. Science 296:1971–1972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Parry ML, Rosenzweig C, Iglesias A, Livermore MTJ, Fischer G (2004) Effects of climate change on global food production under SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios. Glob Environ Change 14(1):53–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Persson TA, Azar C, Lindgren K (2006) Allocation of CO2 emission permits—economic incentives for emission reductions in developing countries. Energy Policy 34:1889–1899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Richels R, Manne A, Wigley TML (2004) Moving beyond concentrations: the challenge of limiting temperature change. Working-paper 04–11, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory StudiesGoogle Scholar
  46. Rogner H-H (1997) An Assessment of world hydrocarbon resources. Annu Rev Energy Environ 22:217–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Strengers BJ, van Minnen J, Eickhout B (2006) The role of carbon plantations in mitigating climate change: potentials and costs. Clim Change 88:343–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. UNFCCC (1992) United Nations General Assembly, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, United Nations, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  49. van Vuuren DP, den Elzen MGJ, Berk MM, Lucas P, Eickhout B, Eerens H, Oostenrijk R (2003) Regional costs and benefits of alternative post-Kyoto climate regimes. RIVM-report 728001025, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP), Bilthoven, the NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  50. van Vuuren DP, den Elzen MGJ, Eickhout B, Lucas PL, Strengers BJ, Ruijven, Wonink S, van Houdt R (2007) Stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations at low levels: an assessment of reduction strategies and costs. Clim Change 81(2):119–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. van Vuuren DP, Eickhout B, Lucas PL, den Elzen MGJ (2006) Long-term multi-gas scenarios to stabilise radiative forcing. Energy Journal, Multi-Greenhouse Gas Mitigation and Climate Policy (Special Issue #3):201–234Google Scholar
  52. WBGU (2003) Climate protection strategies for the 21st century. Kyoto and Beyond. German Advisory Council on Global Change, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  53. Weyant JP, De la Chesnaye FC, Blanford G (2006) Overview of EMF-21: multi-gas mitigation and climate change. Energy Journal, Multi-Greenhouse Gas Mitigation and Climate Policy (Special Issue #3):1–32Google Scholar
  54. Wigley TML, Raper SCB (2001) Interpretation of high projections for global-mean warming. Science 293(5529):451–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Winkler H, Spalding-Fecher R, Tyani L (2002) Comparing developing countries under potential carbon allocation schemes. Clim Policy 2(9):1–16Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michel G. J. den Elzen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Paul L. Lucas
    • 1
  • Detlef P. van Vuuren
    • 1
  1. 1.Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP)BilthovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations