Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 110, Issue 1–2, pp 123–141 | Cite as

Economics- and physical-based metrics for comparing greenhouse gases

  • Daniel J. A. JohanssonEmail author
Article

Abstract

A range of alternatives to the Global Warming Potential (GWP) have been suggested in the scientific literature. One of the alternative metrics that has received attention is the cost-effective relative valuation of greenhouse gases, recently denoted Global Cost Potential (GCP). However, this metric is based on complex optimising integrated assessment models that are far from transparent to the general scientist or policymaker. Here we present a new analytic metric, the Cost-Effective Temperature Potential (CETP) which is based on an approximation of the GCP. This new metric is constructed in order to enhance general understanding of the GCP and elucidate the links between physical metrics and metrics that take economics into account. We show that this metric has got similarities with the purely physical metric, Global Temperature change Potential (GTP). However, in contrast with the GTP, the CETP takes the long-term temperature response into account.

Keywords

Discount Rate Global Warming Potential Abatement Cost Temperature Constraint Emission Pulse 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrews DR, Allen MR (2008) Diagnosis of climate models in terms of transientclimate response and feedback response time. Atmos Sci Lett 9:7–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azar C, Sterner T (1996) Discounting and distributional considerations in the context of global warming. Ecol Econ 19(2):169–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumol WJ, Oates WE (1988) The theory of environmental policy, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Dasgupta P (2008) Discounting climate change. J Risk Uncertainty 37(2–3):141–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. den Elzen MGJ, van Vuuren DP (2007) Peaking profiles for achieving long-term temperature targets with more likelihood at lower costs. PNAS 104(46):17931–17936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eckaus RS (1992) Comparing the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on global warming. Energy J 13:25–35Google Scholar
  7. Fisher DA, Hales CH, Wang W-C, Ko MKW, Dak SN (1990) Model calculations of the relative effects of CFCs and their replacements on global warming. Nature 344:513–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Forster P, Ramaswamy V, Artaxo P, Berntsen T, Betts R, Fahey DW, Haywood J, Lean J, Lowe DC, Myhre G, Nganga J, Prinn R, Raga G, Schulz M, Van Dorland R (2007) Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Fuglestvedt JS, Berntsen TK, Godal O, Sausen R, Shine KP, Skodvin T (2003) Metrics of climate change: assessing radiative forcing and emission indices. Clim Change 58:267–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fuglestvedt JS, Shine KP, Berntsen T, Cook J, Lee JS, Stenke A, Bieltvedt Skeie R, Velders G, Waitz I (2010) Transport impacts on atmosphere and climate: metrics. Atmos Environ 44:4648–4677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hammitt JK, Jain AK, Adams JL, Wuebbles DJ (1996) A welfare-based index for assessing environmental effects of greenhouse-gas emissions. Nature 381:301–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hayhoe K, Jain A, Pitcher H, MacCracken C, Gibbs M, Wuebbles D, Harvey R, Kruger D (2000) Climate change policy - costs of multigreenhouse gas reduction targets for the USA. Science 286:905–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. IPCC (1992) In: Houghton JT, Callander BA, Varney SK (eds) 1992 IPCC supplement. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Johansson DJA (2010) Temperature stabilization, ocean heat uptake and radiative forcing overshoot profiles. Clim Change. doi: 10.1007/s10584-010-9969-4 Google Scholar
  16. Johansson DJA, Persson UM, Azar C (2008) Uncertainty and learning: implications for the trade-off between short-lived and long-lived greenhouse gases. Clim Change 88:293–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kandlikar M (1996) Indices for comparing greenhouse gas emissions: integrating science and economics. Energy Econ 18:265–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lashof DA, Ahuja DR (1990) The relative contributions of greenhouse gas emissions to global warming. Nature 344:529–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lind RC (ed) (1982) Discounting for time and risk in energy policy. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  20. Manne AS, Richels RG (2001) An alternative approach to establishing trade-offs among greenhouse gases. Nature 410(6829):675–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maier-Reimer E, Hasselmann K (1987) Transport and storage of CO2 in the ocean – an inorganic ocean-circulation carbon cycle model. Climate Dyn 2(2):63–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Michaelis P (1992) Global warming: efficient policies in the case of multiple pollutants. Environ Resour Econ 2:61–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. O’Neill BC (2000) The jury is still out on global warming potentials. Clim Change 44:427–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. O’Neill BC (2003) Economics, natural science, and the costs of global warming potentials. Clim Change 58(3):251–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Plattner G-K, Stocker T, Midgley P, Tigno M (2009) IPCC expert meeting on the science of alternative metricsGoogle Scholar
  26. Reilly JM, Richards KR (1993) Climate change damage and the trace gas index issue. Environ Resour Econ 3:41–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reilly J, Prinn R, Harnisch J, Fitzmaurice J, Jacoby H, Kicklighter D, Melillo J, Stone P, Sokolov A, Wang C (1999) Multi gas assessment of the Kyoto protocol. Nature 401:549–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Richels RG, Manne AS, Wigley TML (2007) Moving beyond concentrations: the challenge of limiting temperature change. In: Schlesinger ME, Kheshgi HS, Smith J, Chesnaye FDL, Reilly JM, Wilson T, Kolstad C (eds) Human-induced climate change: an interdisciplinary assessment. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Schmalensee R (1993) Comparing greenhouse gases for policy purposes. Energy J 14:245–255Google Scholar
  30. Shackley S, Wynne B (1997) Global warming potentials: ambiguity or precision as an aid to policy? Clim Res 8:89–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shine K, Derwent RG, Wuebbles DJ, Morcrette JJ (1990) Radiative forcing of climate. In: Houghton JT et al (eds) Climate change: the IPCC scientific assessment. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. Shine KP, Fuglestvedt JS, Hailemariam K, Stuber N (2005) Alternatives to the global warming potential for comparing climate impacts of emissions of greenhouse gases. Clim Change 68(3):281–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shine KP, Berntsen TK, Fuglestvedt JS, Bieltvedt SR, Stuber N (2007) Comparing the climate effect of emissions of short and long lived climate agents. Philos Trans R Soc A 365(1856):1903–1914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Smith SJ (2003) The evaluation of greenhouse gas indices. Clim Change 58(3):261–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith SJ, Wigley TML (2000) Global warming potentials: 1. Climatic implications of emissions reductions. Clim Change 44:445–457Google Scholar
  36. Stern NH (2007) The economics of climate change: the stern review. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. Sterner T (2002) Policy instruments for environmental and natural resource management. RFF, MishawakaGoogle Scholar
  38. Tanaka K, O’Neill BC, Rokityanskiy D, Obersteiner M, Tol RSJ (2009) Evaluating global warming potentials with historical temperature. Clim Change 96(4):443–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tol RSJ, Berntsen TK, O’Neill BC, Fuglestvedt JS, Shine KP, Balkanski Y, Makra L (2008) Metrics for aggregating the climate effect of different emissions: a unifying framework. ESRI Working paper No. 257Google Scholar
  40. UNFCCC (1992) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeGoogle Scholar
  41. UNFCCC (1997) Kyoto protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeGoogle Scholar
  42. UNFCCC (2008) Consideration of relevant methodological issues. Document: FCCC/KP/AWG/2008/L.14Google Scholar
  43. UNFCCC (2009) Copenhagen AccordGoogle Scholar
  44. Van Vuuren DP, Weyant J, de la Chesnaye F (2006) Multi-gas scenarios to stabilize radiative forcing. Energy Econ 28:102–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Weyant JP, de la Chesnaye F, Blanford GJ (2006) Overview of EMF-21: multigas mitigation and climate policy. Energy Journal, Special Issue #3 – Multi-greenhouse gas mitigation and climate policyGoogle Scholar
  46. Wigley TML (1998) The Kyoto Protocol: CO2, CH4 and climate implications. Geophys Res Lett 25(13):2285–2288CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Physical Resource Theory, Department of Energy and EnvironmentChalmers University of TechnologyGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.Environmental Economics Unit, Department of Economics, School of Business, Economics and LawUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations