Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 100, Issue 3–4, pp 769–778 | Cite as

Counting only the hits? The risk of underestimating the costs of stringent climate policy

A letter
  • Massimo TavoniEmail author
  • Richard S. J. Tol
Open Access
Letter

Abstract

This paper warns against the risk of underestimating the costs—and the uncertainty about the costs—of achieving stringent stabilization targets. We argue that a straightforward review of integrated assessment models results produces biased estimates for the more ambitious climate objectives such as those compatible with the 2°C of the European Union and the G8. The magnitude and range of estimates are significantly reduced because only the most optimistic results are reported for such targets. We suggest a procedure that addresses this partiality. The results show highly variable costs for the most ambitious scenarios.

Keywords

Climate Policy Abatement Cost Policy Cost Energy Econ Emission Reduction 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.

References

  1. Barker T, Koehler J, Villena M (2002) The costs of greenhouse gas abatement: a meta-analysis of post-SRES mitigation scenarios. Environ Econ Policy Stud 5:135–166Google Scholar
  2. Barker T, Bashmakov I, Alharthi A, Amann M, Cifuentes L, Drexhage J, Duan M, Edenhofer O, Flannery BP, Grubb MJ, Hoogwijk M, Ibitoye FI, Jepma CJ, Pizer WA, Yamaji K (2007) Mitigation from a cross-sectoral perspective. In: Metz B et al (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, pp 619–690Google Scholar
  3. Blanford GJ, Richels RG, Rutherford TF (2009) Feasible climate targets: the roles of economic growth, coalition development and expectations. Energy Econ 31(Suppl 2):S82–S93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bosetti V, Carraro C, Tavoni M (2009) Climate change mitigation strategies in fast-growing countries: the benefits of early action. Energy Econ 31(Suppl 2):S144–S151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Calvin K, Edmonds J, Bond-Lamberty B, Clarke L, Kim SH, Kyle P, Smith SJ, Thomson A, Wise M (2009a) 2.6: limiting climate change to 450 ppm CO2 equivalent in the 21st century. Energy Econ 31(Suppl 2):S107–S120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Calvin K, Patel P, Fawcett A, Clarke L, Fisher-Vanden K, Edmonds J, Kim SH, Sands R, Wise M (2009b) The distribution and magnitude of emissions mitigation costs in climate stabilization under less than perfect international cooperation: SGM results. Energy Econ 31(Suppl 2):S187–S197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. CEC (2005) Winning the battle against global climate change. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions COM(2005) 35 final, Commission of the European Communities, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke L, Edmonds J, Krey V, Richels R, Rose S, Tavoni M (2009) International climate policy architectures: overview of the EMF 22 international scenarios. Energy Econ 31(S2):S64–S81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fischer C, Morgenstern RD (2006) Carbon abatement costs: why the wide range of estimates? Energy J 272:73–86Google Scholar
  10. Gurney A, Ahammad H, Ford M (2009) The economics of greenhouse gas mitigation: insights from illustrative global abatement scenarios modelling. Energy Econ 31(Suppl 2):S174–S186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hertel TW, Rose S, Tol RSJ (eds) (2009) Economic analysis of land use in global climate change policy. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. IPCC (2007) Summary for policymakers. In Metz B et al (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, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Keith DW, Ha-Duong M, Stolaroff JK (2006) Climate strategy with CO2 capture from the air. Clim Change 74:17–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Keller K, McInerney D, Bradford DF (2008) Carbon dioxide sequestration: how much and when? Clim Change 88:267–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Krey V, Riahi K (2009) Implications of delayed participation and technology failure for the feasibility, costs, and likelihood of staying below temperature targets–Greenhouse gas mitigation scenarios for the 21st century. Energy Econ 31(Suppl 2):S94–S106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kuik OJ, Brander L, Tol RSJ (2009) Marginal abatement costs of greenhouse gas emissions: a meta-analysis. Energy Policy 37(4):1395–1403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lackner KS (2009) Capture of carbon dioxide from ambient air. Eur Phys J Special Topics 176:93–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Loulou R, Labriet M, Kanudia A (2009) Deterministic and stochastic analysis of alternative climate targets under differentiated cooperation regimes. Energy Econ 31(Suppl 2):S131–S143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. MEF (2009) Declaration of the major economies forum on energy and climate. Major Economies Forum, L’AquilaGoogle Scholar
  20. Repetto R, Austin D (1997) The costs of climate protection: a guide for the perplexed. World Resources Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  21. Rhodes JS, Keith DW (2005) Engineering economic analysis of biomass IGCC with carbon capture and storage. Biomass Bioenergy 29(6):440–450Google Scholar
  22. Russ P, van Ierland T (2009) Insights on different participation schemes to meet climate goals. Energy Econ 31(Suppl 2):S163–S173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stephens JC, Keith DW (2008) Assessing geochemical carbon management. Clim Change 90:217–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tol RSJ (2007) Biased policy advice from the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Energy Environ 18(7+8):929–936Google Scholar
  25. Tol RSJ (2009) The feasibility of low concentration targets: an application of FUND. Energy Econ 31(S2):S121–S130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. van Vliet J, den Elzen MGJ, van Vuuren DP (2009) Meeting radiative forcing targets under delayed participation. Energy Econ 31(Suppl 2):S152–S162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Weyant JP (2004) Introduction and overview. Energy Econ 26:501–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Weyant JP, Hill JN (1999) Introduction and overview of the special issue. Energy journal special issue on the costs of the Kyoto protocol: a multi-model evaluation, pp vii–xlivGoogle Scholar
  29. Weyant JP, de la Chesnaye FC, Blanford GJ (2006) Overview of EMF-21: multigas mitigation and climate policy. Energy J 3:1–32Google Scholar
  30. Wise MA, Calvin KV, Thomson AM, Clarke LE, Bond-Lamberty B, Sands RD, Smith SJ, Janetos AC, Edmonds JA (2009) Implications of limiting CO2 concentrations for land use and energy. Science 324:1183–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Princeton Environmental InstitutePrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA
  2. 2.Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM)MilanItaly
  3. 3.Economic and Social Research InstituteDublinIreland
  4. 4.Institute for Environmental StudiesVrije UniversiteitAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Department of Spatial EconomicsVrije UniversiteitAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations