* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Slide 1
Climate sensitivity wikipedia , lookup
Media coverage of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Kyoto Protocol wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
Climate change adaptation wikipedia , lookup
Emissions trading wikipedia , lookup
New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme wikipedia , lookup
General circulation model wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
German Climate Action Plan 2050 wikipedia , lookup
Years of Living Dangerously wikipedia , lookup
European Union Emission Trading Scheme wikipedia , lookup
2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference wikipedia , lookup
Decarbonisation measures in proposed UK electricity market reform wikipedia , lookup
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change wikipedia , lookup
Paris Agreement wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in New Zealand wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Views on the Kyoto Protocol wikipedia , lookup
Low-carbon economy wikipedia , lookup
Carbon governance in England wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Business action on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Mitigation of global warming in Australia wikipedia , lookup
Carbon emission trading wikipedia , lookup
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme wikipedia , lookup
Integrated Assessment Models: Modeling Mitigation (Abatement) Economics 331b Spring 2011 Week of March 28 1 Agenda This week (Monday and Wednesday): - Review on term paper - How to calculate SCC - Final work on impacts - Mitigation Next Monday: Add last module to your little model: mitigation. 2 How to estimate SCC 1. Numerical derivative: - Calculate PV income - Recalculate PV income with 1 additional unit of E - Take difference - BE VERY CAREFUL WITH UNITS 2. Analytical: - Have Damage=D=f(T); T = g(RF); RF=h(C); C=z(E). - Therefore D’(E)=f’ g’ h’ z’ 3 Model estimate 4 UNITS!!! 5 National Academy Report on Abrupt Climate Change “Illustration of difference between impacts with and without adaptation. The upper line shows the impact of climate change with full adaptation where farmers can change crops and irrigate…. The lower line shows the impacts without adaptation, as is likely to occur with abrupt climate change. Note that … the costs are likely to be lower with adaptation. We have also shown a break in the no-adaptation line to reflect the potential for sharp threshold effects, such as those due to floods or fire.” (National Academy, Abrupt Climate Change, 2002.) Components of damages circa 2000 Damages in billions of 2000 $ Low High Market or near-market Agriculture Forest Sea level rise Electricity Hurricanes Water supply Urban infrastructure 1.1 0.0 4.0 1.1 0.2 7.0 0.0 17.5 43.6 8.4 11.2 0.8 15.6 0.1 Non-market Human amenity Human mortality Migration Leisure Air pollution Species loss 0.0 9.4 0.5 0.0 3.5 4.0 12.0 37.4 1.0 1.7 59.8 8.4 Total 55.5 139.2 Percent of GDP 1.0 Source: IPCC, Second Assessment Report 2.5 7 Damage summary: global 6 Dots from Tol survey Damages as percent of output 5 4 Line is Yale DICE/RICE model 3 2 1 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 -1 -2 -3 Global mean temperature increase (°C) 8 Summary of Impacts Estimates Early studies contained a major surprise: Modest impacts for gradual climate change, market impacts, highincome economies, next 50-100 years: - Impact about 0 (+ 2) percent of output. - Further studies confirmed this general result. BUT, outside of this narrow finding, potential for big problems: - many subtle thresholds and tipping elements - abrupt climate change (“inevitable surprises”) - many ecological disruptions (ocean carbonization, species loss, forest wildfires, loss of terrestrial glaciers, snow packs, …) - stress to small, topical, developing countries - gradual coastal inundation of 1 – 10 meters over 1-5 centuries 9 Now on to mitigation (abatement) costs 11 Price of carbon emissions The basic analytical structure Marginal Cost Pcarbon* Social cost of carbon 0 Abatement* Abatement 12 Mitigation (abatement) • We have examined the damage side. • For a full cost-benefit analysis, we need the cost side. • “Mitigation” involves analyses of the policies involving the reduction of emissions CO2 and other GHGs There are four major issues involved: 1. Projecting the emissions 2. Estimating the costs of emissions reductions 3. Designing policies to reduce emissions 4. Encouraging low-carbon technological change • This set of tasks is generally much easier that impacts because we have extensive information on impacts of energy taxes, regulations, etc. 13 1. Projecting emissions For this we need an integrated assessment model. As an example, the following shows the projected emissions to 2105 in the Yale-RICE model and in several other models examined in EMF-22. 14 Projections CO2 emissions various models (with no emissions reductions policies) 140 Global emissions Gt CO2 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 EMF-22 and Yale-RICE model (with orange dots) 15 Scientific consensus Commonly heard. But what is a scientific consensus? Does scientific consensus = truth? 16 2. Estimating Costs of Reducing Emissions Analysts use different strategies to model abatement: – Some use econometric analysis (“top-down”) – Some use engineering/mathematical programming estimates (“bottom up”) – Behavioral (uncharted territory … how to do this?) Bottom up: - Relies on individual technologies and processes from engineering studies - Aggregates these together to get a minimum cost mitigation function - Often has weak behavioral component. 17 Example from passenger cars 18 Example from passenger cars 19 Estimated cost of improvement, compact car Nat. Acad. Sci., Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards,2002. 20 Example from McKinzey Study 21 Impact of Japanese events on mitigation costs? 22 Nordhaus house survey *** *** *** *** Feature Air Sealup Seal air leaks Duct Sealing Seal ducts Insulation storage Floor Insulation - Laundry Insulate to R 30 Floor Insulation - Rear Crawl Duct pipe insulation Door insulation (3) 13 Medium Window(s) Replace with double-pane, low-e 20 Small Window(s) Replace with double-pane, low-e Attic insulation -- storage Attic insulation -- original Basement window panels Stair window panels Downstairs windows -- high e ALL PROPOSED Cost Savings $979 $360 $987 $349 $391 $113 $421 $117 $514 $111 $836 $175 $300 $35 $4,576 $394 $5,500 $350 $541 $32 $605 $31 $250 $10 $550 $8 $15,000 $150 $31,450 $2,235 Rate of return 37% 35% 29% 28% 22% 21% 12% 9% 6% 6% 5% 4% 1% 1% 7% Nordhaus house survey *** recommended by contractor 23 2. Top-down (econometric) Top down or econometric: - Look for some kind of “experiment” in which energy or carbon prices vary. Then estimate impact of higher prices on carbon emissions: - Some examples of CO2 taxes or European Trading System. - More useful are energy taxes. - Some rely on production functions and simulations. 24 Example of econometric (“top-down”) approach to mitigation [Numbers are calibrated to Actual US data.] Carbon price ($ per ton C reduction) Assume that the demand for gasoline is Q = Bp-λ Supply of gasoline is perfectly elastic with tax τ: p=q+ τ CO2 emissions are proportional to consumption: E = kQ 250 So we have: 200 E = kB -λ (q + τ)-λ =c (q + τ)-λ 150 100 50 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Percentage reduction 25 Further discussion There has been a great deal of controversy about the McKinsey study. The idea of “negative cost” emissions reduction raises major conceptual and policy issues. Most economic models rely on more econometric studies. The next set of slides shows estimates based on the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report survey of mitigation costs. The bottom line is that the cost using the top-down approaches are generally higher than bottom-up. 26 Survey of multiple models from IPCC FAR Source: IPCC, AR4, Mitigation. 27 Summary of estimates Source: IPCC, AR4, Mitigation, p. 77. 28 Summary from IPCC 100 Top down Carbon price (p/t C) 80 Bottom up 60 40 20 0 -20 0 10 20 30 40 Percentage reduction 29 Derivation of mitigation cost function in RICE model Start with a reduced-form cost function: (1) C = Qλμ where C = mitigation cost, Q = GDP, μ = emissions control rate, λ, are parameters. Take the derivative w.r.t. emissions and substitute σ = E0 /Q (2) dC/dE = MC emissions reductions = Qλβμ-1[dμ/dE] = λβμ-1/σ Note that MC(0) = 0; MC(1) = λβ/σ = price of backstop technology*; and C/Q = λ with zero emissions. *”Backstop technology” is technology at which get 100 emissions reduction (say solar/nuclear/fusion/wind for everything). 30 What are your views on top down v. bottom up? There is a very lively controversy about the role of "negative cost" mitigation. The McKinsey report (Reducing US Greenhouse Emissions, p. xiii) has a very substantial number of such mitigation possibilities. Other modelers are sharply critical of the MK report and believe that (aside from external costs) there are very few negative cost options. You should think about this and have some pros and cons (for final exam?). 31