Time to act now? Assessing the costs of delaying climate measures and benefits of early action

Abstract

This paper compares the results of the three state of the art climate-energy-economy models IMACLIM-R, ReMIND-R, and WITCH to assess the costs of climate change mitigation in scenarios in which the implementation of a global climate agreement is delayed or major emitters decide to participate in the agreement at a later stage only. We find that for stabilizing atmospheric GHG concentrations at 450 ppm CO2-only, postponing a global agreement to 2020 raises global mitigation costs by at least about half and a delay to 2030 renders ambitious climate targets infeasible to achieve. In the standard policy scenario—in which allocation of emission permits is aimed at equal per-capita levels in the year 2050—regions with above average emissions (such as the EU and the US alongside the rest of Annex-I countries) incur lower mitigation costs by taking early action, even if mitigation efforts in the rest of the world experience a delay. However, regions with low per-capita emissions which are net exporters of emission permits (such as India) can possibly benefit from higher future carbon prices resulting from a delay. We illustrate the economic mechanism behind these observations and analyze how (1) lock-in of carbon intensive infrastructure, (2) differences in global carbon prices, and (3) changes in reduction commitments resulting from delayed action influence mitigation costs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Beccherle J, Tirole J (2010) Regional initiatives and the cost of delaying binding climate change agreements, mimeo

  2. Bosetti V, Carraro C, Galeotti M, Massetti E, Tavoni M (2006) A world induced technical change hybrid model. Energy J 27(Special Issue 2):13–38

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bosetti V, Carraro C, Galeotti M, Massetti E, Tavoni M (2007) The WITCH model: structure, baseline and solution. FEEM Working Paper N. 10.2007, Milan

  4. Bosetti V, Carraro C, Sgobbi A, Tavoni M (2009) Delayed action and uncertain targets. How much will climate policy cost? Clim Change 96:299–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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(Supplement 2):S64–S81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Davis SJ, Caldeira K, Matthews HD (2010) Future CO2 emissions and climate change from existing energy infrastructure. Science 10(5997):1330–1333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Edenhofer O, Carraro C, Koehler J, Grubb M (eds) (2006) Endogenous technological change and the economics of atmospheric stabilisation. A special issue of the energy journal, vol 27

  8. Edmonds J, Clarke L, Lurz J, Wise M (2008) Stabilizing CO2 concentrations with incomplete international cooperation. Climate Policy 8:355–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fisher BS, Nakicenovic N, Alfsen K, Corfee Morlot J, de la Chesnaye F, Hourcade J-C, Jiang K, Kainuma M, La Rovere E, Matysek A, Rana A, Riahi K, Richels R, Rose S, van Vuuren D, Warren R (2007) Issues related to mitigation in the long term context. 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 Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  10. Flachsland C, Marschinski R, Edenhofer O (2009) Global trading versus linking. Architectures for international emissions trading. Energy Policy 37:1637–1647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ha-Duong M, Grubb MJ, Hourcade J-C (1997) Influence of socioeconomic inertia and uncertainty on optimal CO2-emission abatement. Nature 390(6657):270–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Harstad B (2009) The dynamics of climate agreements. Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements Discussion Paper 09-28

  13. Jakob M, Bosetti V, Waisman H, De Cian E, Steckel J, Leimbach M, Baumstark L (2009a) The RECIPE reference scenarios. RECIPE Backgound Paper. http://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/jakob/publications/recipe-baseline-scenarios

  14. Jakob M, Waisman H, Bosetti V, De Cian E, Leimbach M, Baumstark L, Luderer G (2009b) Description of the RECIPE models. RECIPE Backgound Paper. http://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/jakob/publications/recipe-model-descriptions

  15. Keppo I, Rao S (2007) International climate regimes: effects of delayed participation. Technol Forecast Soc Change 74(7):962–979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Knopf B, Edenhofer O, Flachsland C, Kok MTJ, Lotze-Campen H, Luderer G, Popp A, van Vuuren DP (2010) Managing the low-carbon transition – from model results to policies. Energ J 31(Special Issue 1):223–245

    Google Scholar 

  17. Leimbach M, Bauer N, Baumstark L, Edenhofer O (2009) Mitigation costs in a globalized world: climate policy analysis with ReMIND-R. Environ Model Assess 15:155–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Luderer G, Bosetti V, Jakob M, Leimbach M, Steckel J, Waisman H, Edenhofer O (2011a) The economics of decarbonizing the energy system - results and insights from the RECIPE model intercomparison. Clim Change. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0105-x

    Google Scholar 

  19. Luderer G, DeCian E, Hourcade J-Ch, Leimbach M, Edenhofer O (2011b) The regional distribution of mitigation costs—a tale of scarcity rents. Clim Change (this issue)

  20. Meinhausen M, Meinshausen N, Hare W, Raper S, Frieler K, Knutti R, Frame D, Allen M (2009) Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2°C. Nature 458:1158–1163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Meyer A (2004) Briefing: contraction and convergence. Engineering Sustainability 157(Issue 4):189–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mignone B, Socolow R, Sarmiento J, Oppenheimer M (2008) Atmospheric stabilization and the timing of carbon mitigation. Clim Change 88(3):251–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Nordhaus WD (1992) An optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases. Science 258:1315–1319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Nordhaus WD, Yang Z (1996) A regional dynamic general-equilibrium model of alternative climate-change strategies. Am Econ Rev 86(4):741–765

    Google Scholar 

  25. Richels R, Rutherford T, Blanford G, Clarke L (2008) Managing the transition to climate stabilization. Climate Policy 7(5):409–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Sassi O, Crassous R, Hourcade J-C, Gitz V, Waisman H, Guivarch C (2010) Imaclim-R: a modelling framework to simulate sustainable development pathways. Int J Global Environmental Issues 10(1/2):5–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Stern N (2006) The economics of climate change. The Stern Review. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  28. UNFCCC (2009) Decision -/CP.15. Available online at http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_15/application/pdf/cop15_cph_auv.pdf

  29. van Vliet J, den Elzen MGJ, van Vuuren DP (2009) Meeting radiative forcing targets under delayed participation. Energy Econ 31:152–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Wigley T, Richels R, Edmonds J (1996) Economic and environmental choices in the stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Nature 379(6562):240–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Jakob.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jakob, M., Luderer, G., Steckel, J. et al. Time to act now? Assessing the costs of delaying climate measures and benefits of early action. Climatic Change 114, 79–99 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0128-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • European Union
  • Climate Policy
  • Carbon Price
  • Marginal Abatement Cost
  • Emission Permit