Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 57, Issue 1–2, pp 71–98 | Cite as

Methane Emission Reduction: An Application of FUND

  • Richard S. J. Tol
  • Roebyem J. Heintz
  • Petronella E. M. Lammers
Article

Abstract

Methane is, after carbon dioxide, the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas. Governments plan to abate methane emissions. A crude set of estimates of reduction costs is included in FUND, an integratedassessment model of climate change. In a cost-benefit analysis, methane emission reduction is found to be instrumental in controlling the optimal rate of climate change. In a cost-effectiveness analysis, methane emission reduction largely replaces carbon dioxide emission reduction. Methane emission reduction reinforces the case for international cooperation in climate policy, but complicates the efficient allocation of emission reduction efforts. Methane emission reduction at the short run does not help to achieve the ultimate objective of the Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Keywords

Climate Change Carbon Dioxide Abate Emission Reduction 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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albritton, D. L., Derwent, R. G., Isaksen, I. S. A., Lal M., and Wuebbles, D. J.: 1994, ‘Trace Gas Radiative Forcing Indices’, in J. T. Houghton, L. G. Meiro Filho, J. P. Bruce, H. Lee, B. A. Callander, E. F. Haites, N. Harris, and K. Maskell (eds.), Climate Change 1994Radiative Forcing of Climate Change and An Evaluation of the IPCC IS92 Emission Scenarios, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 205–246.Google Scholar
  2. Batjes, J. J. and Goldewijk, C. G. M.: 1994, The IMAGE 2 Hundred Year (1890–1990) Database of the Global Environment (HYDE), 410100082, RIVM, Bilthoven.Google Scholar
  3. Blok, K. and de Jager, D.: 1994, ‘Effectiveness of Non–CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emission Technologies’, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 31, 17–40.Google Scholar
  4. De Jager, D. and Blok, K.: 1993, Cost–Effectiveness of Emission Reducing Measures for Methane in the Netherlands, Ecofys Research and Consultancy, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  5. Fankhauser, S.: 1995, Valuing Climate ChangeThe Economics of the Greenhouse, EarthScan, London.Google Scholar
  6. Godal, O. and Fuglestvedt, J.: 2002, ‘Testing 100–Year Global Warming Potentials: Impacts on Compliance Costs and Abatement Profile’, Clim. Change 52, 93–127.Google Scholar
  7. Hammitt, J. K., Jain, A. K., Adams J. L., and Wuebbles, D. J.: 1996, ‘A Welfare–Based Index for Assessing Environmental Effects of Greenhouse–Gas Emissions’, Nature 381, 301–303.Google Scholar
  8. Hammitt, J. K., Lempert R. J., and Schlesinger M. E.: 1992, ‘A Sequential–Decision Strategy for Abating Climate Change’, Nature, 357, 315–318.Google Scholar
  9. Hayhoe, K., Jain, A., Kheshgi H., and Wuebbles D.: 2000, ‘Contribution of CH4 to Multi–Gas Emission Reduction Targets: The Impact of Atmospheric Chemistry on GWPs’, in J. van Ham, A. P. M. Baede, L. A. Meyer, and R. Ybema (eds.), Non–CO 2 Greenhouse Gases: Scientific Understanding, Control and Implementation, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  10. Hayhoe, K., Jain, A., Pitcher, H., MacCracken, C., Gibbs, M., Wuebbles, D., Harvey, R., and Kruger, D.: 1999, ‘Costs of Multigreenhouse Gas Reduction Targets for the U.S.A.’, Science 286, 905–906.Google Scholar
  11. Hogan, K. B. (ed.): 1993a, Options for Reducing Methane Emissions InternationallyVolume II: International Opportunities for Reducing Methane Emissions, EPA 430–R–93–006 B, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  12. Hogan, K. B. (ed.): 1993b, Options for Reducing Methane Emissions InternationallyVolume I: Technological Options for Reducing Methane Emissions, EPA 430–R–93–006, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  13. Hourcade, J.–C., Halsneas, K., Jaccard, M., Montgomery, W. D., Richels, R. G., Robinson, J., Shukla, P. R., and Sturm, P.: 1996b, ‘A Review of Mitigation Cost Studies’, in J. P. Bruce, H. Lee, and E. F. Haites (eds.), Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social DimensionsContribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 297–366.Google Scholar
  14. Hourcade, J.–C., Richels, R. G., Robinson, J., Chandler, W., Davidson, O., Finon, D., Grubb, M. J., Halsneas, K., Hogan, K., Jaccard, M., Krause, F., La Rovere, E., Montgomery, W. D., Nastari, P., Pegov, A., Richards, K., Schrattenholzer, L., Siniscalco, D., Shukla, P. R., Sokona, Y., Sturm P., and Tudini, A.: 1996a, ‘Estimating the Costs of Mitigating Greenhouse Gases’, in J.P. Bruce, H. Lee, and E. F. Haites (eds.), Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social DimensionsContribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 263–296Google Scholar
  15. Jensen, J. and Thelle, M. H.: 2001, What Are the Gains from a Multi–Gas Strategy?, Nota di Lavoro 84.2001, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Milan.Google Scholar
  16. Kandlikar, M.: 1995, ‘The Relative Role of Trace Gas Emissions in Greenhouse Abatement Policies’, Energy Policy 23 (10), 879–883.Google Scholar
  17. Kandlikar, M.: 1996, ‘Indices for Comparing Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Integrating Science and Economics’, Energy Economics 18, 265–281.Google Scholar
  18. Kattenberg, A., Giorgi, F., Grassl, H., Meehl, G. A., Mitchell, J. F. B., Stouffer, R. J., Tokioka, T., Weaver A. J., and Wigley T. M. L.: 1996, ‘Climate Models — Projections of Future Climate’, in J. T. Houghton, L. G. Meiro Filho, B. A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell (eds.), Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate ChangeContribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 285–357.Google Scholar
  19. Kemfert, C. and Tol, R. S. J.: 2002, ‘Equity, International Trade and Climate Policy’, International Environmental Agreements 2, 23–48.Google Scholar
  20. Kruger, D., Dastin–Van Rijn, M., Harvey, R., and Gibbs, M. J. (ed.): 1998, Costs of Reducing Methane Emissions in the United States, Environmental Policy Agency, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  21. Leggett, J., Pepper, W. J., and Swart, R. J.: 1992, ‘Emissions Scenarios for the IPCC: An Update’, in J. T. Houghton, B. A. Callander, and S. K. Varney (eds.), Climate Change 1992The Supplementary Report to the IPCC Scientific Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 71–95.Google Scholar
  22. Lelieveld, J., Crutzen P. J., and Dentener, F. J.: 1998, ‘Changing Concentration, Lifetime and Climate Forcing of Atmospheric Methane’, Tellus 50B, 128–150.Google Scholar
  23. Maier–Reimer, E. and Hasselmann, K.: 1987, ‘Transport and Storage of Carbon Dioxide in the Ocean: An Inorganic Ocean Circulation Carbon Cycle Model’, Clim. Dyn. 2, 63–90.Google Scholar
  24. Manne, A. S. and Richels, R. G.: 1998, ‘On Stabilizing CO2 Concentrations — Cost–Effective Emission Reduction Strategies’, Environ. Model. Assess. 2, 251–265.Google Scholar
  25. Manne, A. S. and Richels, R. G.: 2001, ‘An Alternative Approach to Establishing Trade–offs among Greenhouse Gases’, Nature 410, 675–677.Google Scholar
  26. Michealis, P.: 1992, ‘GlobalWarming: Efficient Policies in the Case of Multiple Pollutants’, Environ. Resour. Econ. 2, 61–77.Google Scholar
  27. Pearce, D. W., Cline, W. R., Achanta, A. N., Fankhauser, S., Pachauri, R. K., Tol, R. S. J., and Vellinga, P.: 1996, ‘The Social Costs of Climate Change: Greenhouse Damage and the Benefits of Control’, in J. P. Bruce, H. Lee, and E. F. Haites (eds.), Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social DimensionsContribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 179–224.Google Scholar
  28. Prinn, R. G., Jacoby, H. D., and Sokolov, A. P. et al.: 1999, ‘Integrated Global System Model for Climate Policy Assessment: Feedbacks and Sensitivity Studies’, Clim. Change 3–4 (469), 546.Google Scholar
  29. Reilly, J., Prinn, R., Harnisch, J., Fitzmaurice, J., Jacoby, H., Kicklighter, D., Melillo, J., Stone, P., Sokolov, A., and Wang, C.: 1999, ‘Multi–Gas Assessment of the Kyoto Protocol’, Nature 401, 549–555.Google Scholar
  30. Reilly, J. M. and Richards, K. R.: 1993, ‘Climate Change Damage and the Trace Gas Index Issue’, Environ. Resour. Econ. 3, 41–61.Google Scholar
  31. Rose, A. and Stevens, B.: 1993, ‘The Efficiency and Equity of Marketable Permits for CO2 Emissions’, Resource and Energy Economics 15, 117–146.Google Scholar
  32. Schimel, D., Alves, D., Enting, I., Heimann, M., Joos, F., Raynaud, M., Derwent, R., Ehhalt, D., Fraser, P., Sanhueza, E., Zhou, X., Jonas, P., Charlson, R., Rodhe, H., Sadasivan, S., Shine, K. P., Fouquart, Y., Ramaswamy, V., Solomon, S., Srinivasan, J., Albritton, D. L., Isaksen, I., Lal M., and Wuebbles, D. J.: 1996, ‘Radiative Forcing of Climate Change’, in J. T. Houghton, L. G. Meiro Filho, B. A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell (eds.), Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change–Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 65–131.Google Scholar
  33. Schmalensee, R.: 1993, ‘Comparing Greenhouse Gases for Policy Purposes’, Energy J. 14, 245–255.Google Scholar
  34. Schneider, S. H. and Goulder, L. H.: 1997, ‘Achieving Low–Cost Emissions Targets’, Nature 389, 13–14.Google Scholar
  35. Shine, K. P., Derwent, R. G., Wuebbles D. J., and Morcrette, J.–J.: 1990, ‘Radiative Forcing of Climate’, in J. T. Houghton, G. J. Jenkins and J. J. Ephraums (eds.), Climate Change–The IPCC Scientific Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 41–68Google Scholar
  36. Smith, S. J. and Wigley, T. M. L.: 2000a, ‘Global Warming Potentials: 1. Climatic Implications of Emissions Reductions’, Clim. Change 44, 445–457.Google Scholar
  37. Smith, S. J. and Wigley, T. M. L.: 2000b, ‘Global Warming Potentials: 2. Accuracy’, Clim. Change 44, 459–469.Google Scholar
  38. Titus, J. G. and Narayanan, V.: 1996, ‘The Risk of Sea Level Rise’, Clim. Change 33 151–212.Google Scholar
  39. Tol, R. S. J.: 1995, ‘The Damage Costs of Climate Change — Towards More Comprehensive Calculations’, Environ. Resour. Econ. 5, 353–374.Google Scholar
  40. Tol, R. S. J.: 1996, ‘The Damage Costs of Climate Change: Towards a Dynamic Representation’, Ecological Economics 19, 67–90.Google Scholar
  41. Tol, R. S. J.: 1997, ‘On the Optimal Control of Carbon Dioxide Emissions–An Application of FUND’, Environ. Model. Assess. 2, 151–163.Google Scholar
  42. Tol, R. S. J.: 1998a, ‘On the Difference in Impact between Two Almost Identical Climate Scenarios’, Energy Policy 26 (1), 13–20.Google Scholar
  43. Tol, R. S. J.: 1998b, The Optimal Timing of Greenhouse Gas Emission Abatement, Individual Rationality and Intergenerational Equity, Nota di Lavoro 3.98, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Milan, 20 pp.Google Scholar
  44. Tol, R. S. J.: 1998c, ‘Short–Term Decisions under Long–Term Uncertainty’, Energy Economics 20, 557–569.Google Scholar
  45. Tol, R. S. J.: 1999a, ‘Time Discounting and Optimal Control of Climate Change: An Application of FUND’, Clim. Change 41 (3–4), 351–362.Google Scholar
  46. Tol, R. S. J.: 1999b, ‘Kyoto, Efficiency, and Cost–Effectiveness: Applications of FUND’, Energy Journal Special Issue on the Costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi–Model Evaluation, 130–156.Google Scholar
  47. Tol, R. S. J.: 1999c, ‘Spatial and Temporal Efficiency in Climate Policy: Applications of FUND’, Environ. Resour. Econ. 14 (1), 33–49.Google Scholar
  48. Tol, R. S. J.: 1999d, ‘Safe Policies in an Uncertain Climate: An Application of FUND’, Global Environ. Change, 9, 221–232.Google Scholar
  49. Tol, R. S. J.: 1999e, ‘The Marginal Costs of Greenhouse Gas Emissions’, Energy J. 20 (1), 61–81.Google Scholar
  50. Tol, R. S. J.: 2001a, ‘Climate Coalitions in an Integrated Assessment Model’, Computational Economics 18, 159–172.Google Scholar
  51. Tol, R. S. J.: 2001b, ‘Equitable Cost–Benefit Analysis of Climate Change’, Ecological Economics 36 (1), 71–85.Google Scholar
  52. Tol, R. S. J.: 2002a, ‘New Estimates of the Damage Costs of Climate Change, Part I: Benchmark Estimates’, Environ. Resour. Econ. 21 (1), 47–73.Google Scholar
  53. Tol, R. S. J.: 2002b, ‘;New Estimates of the Damage Costs of Climate Change, Part II: Dynamic Estimates’, Environ. Resour. Econ. 21(1), 135–160.Google Scholar
  54. Tol, R. S. J.: 2002c, ‘Welfare Specification and Optimal Control of Climate Change: An Application of FUND’, Energy Economics, 24 (4), 367–376.Google Scholar
  55. Tol, R. S. J.: 2003, ‘Is the Uncertainty about Climate Change Too Large for Expected Cost–Benefit Analysis?’, Clim. Change 56, 265–289.Google Scholar
  56. Tol, R. S. J., Downing, T. E., Fankhauser, S., Richels R. G., and Smith J. B.: 2001, ‘Progrès dans l'Estimation des Coûts des Dommages des Émissions des Gas à Effet de Serre’, Pollution Atmosphérique — Numéro Spécial: Combien Vaut l’Air Propre?, 155–179.Google Scholar
  57. Tol, R. S. J., van der Burg, T., Jansen, H. M. A., and Verbruggen, H.: 1995, The Climate Fund — Some Notions on the Socio–Economic Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Emission Reductions in an International Context, Institute for Environmental Studies R95/03, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  58. United Nations: 1997, Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, United Nations, Geneva.Google Scholar
  59. Van Amstel, A. R. (ed.): 1993, Methane and Nitrous Oxide — Methods in National Emissions Inventories and Options for Control, RIVM, Bilthoven.Google Scholar
  60. Van Ham, J., Baede, A. P. M., Meyer, L. A., and Ybema, R. (eds.): 2000, Non–CO 2 Greenhouse Gases: Scientific Understanding, Control and Implementation, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  61. Van Ham, J., Janssen, L. H. J. M., and Swart, R. J. (eds.): 1994, Non–CO 2 Greenhouse Gases: Why and How to Control? — Proceedings of an International Symposium, Maastricht, The Netherlands, 13–15 December 1993, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  62. Watson, R. T., Zinyowera, M. C., and Moss, R. H. (eds.): 1996, Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptation, and Mitigation of Climate ChangeScientific–Technical AnalysisContribution of Working Group II to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  63. Wigley, T. M. L.:1998, ‘The Kyoto Protocol: CO2, CH4 and Climate Implications’, Geophys. Res. Lett. 25 (13), 2285–2288.Google Scholar
  64. Wigley, T. M. L., Richels, R. G., and Edmonds, J. A.: 1996, ‘Economic and Environmental Choices in the Stabilization of Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations’, Nature 379, 240–243.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard S. J. Tol
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Roebyem J. Heintz
    • 1
    • 4
  • Petronella E. M. Lammers
    • 3
    • 5
  1. 1.Centre for Marine and Climate StudiesHamburg UniversityHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Environmental StudiesVrije UniversiteitAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global ChangeCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghU.S.A
  4. 4.International Energy AgencyUSA
  5. 5.NOVEMUSA

Personalised recommendations