Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 64, Issue 3, pp 257–287 | Cite as

International Emission Trading and the Cost of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation and Sequestration

  • Michael J. Scott
  • James A. Edmonds
  • Natesan Mahasenan
  • Joseph M. Roop
  • Anthony L. Brunello
  • Erik F. Haites
Article

Abstract

The deployment of carbon capture and sequestration (CC&S) technologies is greatly affected by the marginal cost of controlling carbon emissions (also the value of carbon, when emissions permits are traded). Both the severity and timing of emissions limitations and the degree to which emissions limitation obligations can be traded will affect the value of carbon and thereby the timing and magnitude of CC&S technology deployment. Emissions limits that are more stringent in the near term imply higher near-term carbon values and therefore encourage the local development and deployment of CC&S technologies.Trade in emissions obligations lowers the cost of meeting any regional or global emissions limit and so affects the rate of penetration of CC&S technologies. Trade lowers the marginal value of carbon and CC&S penetration in high cost regions and raises the marginal value of carbon and CC&S penetration in low cost regions. The net impact on the world CC&Stechnologies depends on whether their increased use in low-cost regions exceeds the reduced use in high-cost regions.In the long term, CC&S technologies must not only remove carbon but permanently sequester it. If reservoirs are not permanent, then the emissions and costs of control are merely displaced into the future. The paper presents quantitative estimates for the impacts of trade in emissions limitation obligations on the timing, magnitude, and geographic distribution of CC&S technologies and the marginal and total costs of carbon control.

Keywords

Marginal Cost Carbon Emission Carbon Capture Emission Trading Global Emission 
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. Adams, D. M., Alig, R. J., McCarl, B. A., Callaway, J. M., and Winnett, S. M.: 1999, 'Minimum Cost Strategies for Sequestering Carbon in Forests', Land Economics 75(3), 360–374.Google Scholar
  2. Audus, H.: 2000, 'Leading Options for the Capture of CO2 at Power Stations', Fifth International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Cairns, Australia, August 13-August 16 (2000).Google Scholar
  3. Audus, H. and Dennish, T.: 2000, 'The Preliminary Assessment of Novel Power Generation Options Aimed at CO2 Abatement', Fifth International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Cairns, Australia, August 13-August 16 (2000).Google Scholar
  4. Cook, P. J., Rigg, A., and Bradshaw, J.: 2001, 'Putting it Back Where it Came From: Is Geologic Disposal of Carbon Dioxide an Option for Australia?', APPEA Journal 40 (1), 654–666.Google Scholar
  5. Dooley, J. J. and Edmonds, J. A.: 1998, 'Workshop for the Preliminary Identification of Basic Science Needs and Opportunities for the Safe and Economical Capture and Sequestration of CO2', in Benson, S., Chandler, W., Edmonds, J., Levine, M., Bates, L., Chum, H., Dooley, J., Grether, D., Houghton, J., Logan, J., Wiltsee, G., and Wright, L. (eds.), Carbon Management: Assessment of Fundamental Research Needs, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Research, Washington, D.C., August 1998.Google Scholar
  6. Dooley, J. J., Edmonds, J. A., and Wise, M. A.: 1999, The Role of Carbon Capture & Sequestration in a Long-Term Technology Strategy of Atmospheric Stabilization, PNNL-SA-30206, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  7. Edmonds, J. A., Freund, P., and Dooley. J. J.: 2000, 'The Role of Carbon Management Technologies in Addressing Atmospheric Stabilization of Greenhouse Gases', Fifth International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Cairns, Australia, August 13-August 16 (2000).Google Scholar
  8. Edmonds, J., Scott, M. J., Roop J. M., and McCracken, C. N.: 1999, International Emissions Trading and Global Climate Change, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, Virginia.Google Scholar
  9. Edmonds, J. and Wise, M.: 1998, 'Building Backstop Technologies and Policies to Implement The Framework Convention on Climate Change', Energy & Environment 9(4), 383–397.Google Scholar
  10. Edmonds, J., Wise, M., Pitcher, H., Richels, R., Wigley, T., and MacCracken, C.: 1997, 'An Integrated Assessment of Climate Change and the Accelerated Introduction of Advanced Energy Technologies: An Application of MiniCAM 1.0', Mitigation Adaptation Strategies Global Change 1, 311–339.Google Scholar
  11. Edmonds, J., Wise, M., Sands, R., Brown, R., and Kheshgi, H.: 1996, Agriculture, Land-Use, and Commercial Biomass Energy: A Preliminary Integrated Analysis of the Potential Role of Biomass Energy for Reducing Future Greenhouse Related Emissions, PNNL-11155, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  12. Freund, P.: 2000, Progress in Understanding the Potential Role of CO2 Storage, Fifth International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Cairns, Australia, August 13-August 16 (2000).Google Scholar
  13. Freund, P. and Ormerod, W. G.: 1997, 'Progress toward Storage of Carbon Dioxide', Energy Conversion and Management 38, Suppl. S199-S204.Google Scholar
  14. Gottlicher, G. and Pruschek, R.: 1997, 'Comparison of CO2 Removal Systems for Fossil-Fuelled Power Plant Processes', Energy Conversion and Management 38, Suppl. S173-S178.Google Scholar
  15. Herzog, H., Drake, E., and Adams, E.: 1997, 'CO2 Capture, Reuse, and Storage Technologies for Mitigation Global Climate Change', Energy Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  16. International Energy Agency (IEA): 2001, Putting Carbon Back in the Ground, IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme, Stoke Orchard, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, United Kingdom, http://www. ieagreen.org.uk/Google Scholar
  17. International Energy Agency (IEA): 2002, Capture and Storage of CO 2, IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme, Stoke Orchard, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, United Kingdom, http://www. ieagreen.org.uk/removal.htmGoogle Scholar
  18. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): 2001, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Houghton, J. T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D. J., Noguer, M., van der Linden, P. J., Dai, X., Maskell, K., and Johnson, C. A. (eds.), Cambridge University Press, U.K., and New York, NY, U.S.A., 881 pp.Google Scholar
  19. Kane, R. L. and Klein, D. E.: 2001, 'Carbon Sequestration: An Option for Mitigating Global Climate Change', CEP June 2001, 44–52, http:www.aiche.org/cep/Google Scholar
  20. Kremen, C., Niles, J. O., Dalton, M. G., Daily, G. C., Ehrlich, P. R., Fay, J. P., Grewal, D., and Guillery, R. P.: 2000, 'Economic Incentives for Rain Forest Conservation across Scales', Science 288 (June), 1828–1832.Google Scholar
  21. Leggett, J., Pepper, W. J., Swart, R. J., Edmonds, J., Meira Filho, L. G., Mintzer, I., Wang, M. X., and Wasson, J.: 1992, 'Emissions Scenarios for the IPCC: An Update', in Climate Change 1992: The Supplementary Report to the IPCC Scientific Assessment, University Press, Cambridge, U.K.Google Scholar
  22. MacCracken, C. N., Edmonds, J. A., Kim S. H., and Sands, R. D.: 1999, 'The Economics of the Kyoto Protocol', Energy J., Special Issue on The Costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation, pp. 25–71 (May).Google Scholar
  23. Manne, A. S. and Richels, R. G.: 1999, 'The Kyoto Protocol: A Cost-Effective Strategy for Meeting Environmental Objectives?', Energy J., Special Issue on The Costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation, pp. 1–23 (May).Google Scholar
  24. McGrail, B. P., Reidel, S. P., Missfeldt, F., and Schaef, H. T.: 2002, 'Use and Features of Basalt Formations for Geologic Sequestration', in Matsumiya, N. (ed.), Sixth International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth, Kyoto, Japan.Google Scholar
  25. Missfeldt, F. and Haites, E.: 2001, 'The Potential Contribution of Sinks to Meeting Kyoto Protocol Commitments', Environmental Science and Policy 4, 269–292.Google Scholar
  26. Nakićenović, N., Alcamo, J., Davis, G., de Vries, B. Fenhann, J., Gaffin, S., Gregory, K., Grübler, A., Jung, T. Y., Kram, T., La Rovere, E. L., Michaelis, L., Mori, S., Morita, T., Pepper, W., Pitcher, H., Price, L., Raihi, K., Roehrl, A., Rogner, H.-H., Sankovski, A., Schlesinger, M., Shukla, P., Smith, S., Swart, R., van Rooijen, S., Victor, N., and Dadi, Z.: 2000, Emissions Scenarios: A Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.Google Scholar
  27. Nilsson, S. and Schopfhauser, W.: 1995, 'The Carbon-Sequestration Potential of a Global Afforestation Program', Clim. Change 30, 267–293.Google Scholar
  28. Noble, I. R. and Scholes, R. J.: 2001, 'Sinks and the Kyoto Protocol', Climate Policy 1(1), 5–25.Google Scholar
  29. Reilly, J., Mayer, M., and Harnisch, J.: 2000, Multiple Gas Control Under the Kyoto Protocol, Report 58, MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, March.Google Scholar
  30. Rosenberg, N. J., Izaurralde, C., and Malone, E. L.: 1999, 'Introduction to Proceedings', in Rosenberg, N. J., Izaurralde, C., and Malone, E. L. (eds.), Carbon Sequestration in Soils: Science, Monitoring, and Beyond, Proceedings of the St. Michaels Workshop, December 1998, Battelle Press, Columbus, Ohio, 210 pp.Google Scholar
  31. Sampson, N. and Scholes, R.: 2000, 'Additional Human-Induced Activities–Article 3.4.', inWatson, R. T., Noble, I. R., Bolin, B., Ravindranath, N. H., Verardo, D. J., and Dokken D. J. (eds.), Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry: An IPCC Special Report, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., pp. 181–281.Google Scholar
  32. Schlamadinger, B. and Karjalainen. T.: 2000, 'Afforestation, Reforestation and Deforestation Activities', in Watson, R. T., Noble, I. R., Bolin, B., Ravindranath, N. H., Verardo, D. J., and Dokken D. J. (eds.), Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry: An IPCC Special Report, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., pp. 127–179.Google Scholar
  33. Schwarze, R.: 1999, Biologische Quellen und Senken im Kyoto-Protokoll. Ein Plaedoyer fuer die Verknuepfung von internationalem Tropenwald-und Klimaschutz durch den Mechanismus fuer umweltvertraegliche Entwicklung, Diskussionspapier, Technische Universitaet Berlin, Berlin.Google Scholar
  34. Stevens, S. H., Kuuskraa, V. A., and Gale. J.: 2000, 'Sequestration of CO2 in Depleted Oil and Gas Fields: Global Capacity, Costs, and Barriers', Fifth International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Cairns, Australia, August 13-August 16 (2000).Google Scholar
  35. Stevens, S. H. and Taber, J. J.: 1999, Barriers to Overcome in Implementation of CO 2 Capture and Storage (Disused Oil and Gas Fields), IEA Report PH3/22, International Energy Agency, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  36. Watson, R. T., Noble, I. R., Bolin, B., Ravindranath, N. H., Verardo, D. J., and Dokken, D. J. (eds.): 2000, Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry: An IPCC Special Report, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.Google Scholar
  37. Woerdman, E. and van der Gaast, W. P.: 2000, Project-Based Emissions Trading: The Impact of Institutional Arrangements on Cost-Effectiveness, ECOF Working Paper, First Draft, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael J. Scott
    • 1
  • James A. Edmonds
    • 1
  • Natesan Mahasenan
    • 1
  • Joseph M. Roop
    • 1
  • Anthony L. Brunello
    • 2
  • Erik F. Haites
    • 3
  1. 1.Battelle/Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryRichlandU.S.A.
  2. 2.Tahoe-Baikal InstituteSouth Lake TahoeU.S.A.
  3. 3.Margaree Consultants Inc.TorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations