Sentences with phrase «global abatement costs»

But the results do provide some flavor for the proportionate increase in global abatement costs, and in required U.S. emissions pricing, due to delayed developing country participation.

Compared with the globally efficient policy (with a globally harmonized emissions price at all times), near - term emissions prices in developed countries rise from between a few percent and 100 percent under the different scenarios, and discounted global abatement costs are higher by about 10 to 70 percent.

Discounted global abatement costs are anything from about 30 to 400 percent higher than under globally efficient pricing in most cases, and near - and medium - term emissions prices can be ten times larger with China's accession delayed until 2035.

Not exact matches

We present the first global analysis of the costs of abating the estimated 76 million tonnes of methane emitted worldwide each year in oil and gas operations, which suggest that 40 - 50 % of these emissions can be mitigated at no net cost, because the value of the captured methane could cover the abatement measures.

The SkyShares model enables users to relate a target limit for temperature change to a global emissions ceiling; to allocate this emissions budget across countries using different policy rules; and then uses estimated marginal abatement costs to calculate the costs faced by each country of decarbonising to meet its emissions budget, with the costs for each country depending in part on whether and how much carbon trading is allowed.

I've used the present value abatement costs and the projected global temperature change for the mitigation policies listed in Table 5 - 1 to calculate the cost per °C temperature change avoided.

Here I present a rough estimate of the CO2 abatement cost for the Ernest Agee et al. proposal» CO2 Snow Deposition in Antarctica to Curtail Anthropogenic Global Warming».

The cost per °C temperature change avoided is calculated from the present value abatement costs and the projected global temperature change for the mitigation policies listed in Table 5 - 1.

It should not, therefore, be surprising that formal efforts to weigh the near - term costs of emissions abatement against the long - term benefits from avoided global warming show few net benefits, even in theory.

Costs and benefits of the proposed mitigation policy compared with no mitigation policy Item; Units; Optimal Carbon Price; Low - cost backstop; Table Benefits (Reduced damages); 2006 US $ trillion; 5.23; 17.63; 5 - 3 Abatement Cost; 2007 US $ trillion; 2.16; 0.44; 5 - 3 Net Benefit of policy; 2005 US $ trillion; 3.37; 17.19; 5 - 1 Implied CO2 Tax; 2005 US $ / ton C; 202.4; 4.1; 5 - 1 CO2 emissions in 2100; Gt C / a; 11; 0; 5 - 6 CO2 concentration in 2100; ppm CO2; 586; 340; 5 - 7 Global temperature change in 2100; °C from 1900; 2.61; 0.9; 5cost backstop; Table Benefits (Reduced damages); 2006 US $ trillion; 5.23; 17.63; 5 - 3 Abatement Cost; 2007 US $ trillion; 2.16; 0.44; 5 - 3 Net Benefit of policy; 2005 US $ trillion; 3.37; 17.19; 5 - 1 Implied CO2 Tax; 2005 US $ / ton C; 202.4; 4.1; 5 - 1 CO2 emissions in 2100; Gt C / a; 11; 0; 5 - 6 CO2 concentration in 2100; ppm CO2; 586; 340; 5 - 7 Global temperature change in 2100; °C from 1900; 2.61; 0.9; 5Cost; 2007 US $ trillion; 2.16; 0.44; 5 - 3 Net Benefit of policy; 2005 US $ trillion; 3.37; 17.19; 5 - 1 Implied CO2 Tax; 2005 US $ / ton C; 202.4; 4.1; 5 - 1 CO2 emissions in 2100; Gt C / a; 11; 0; 5 - 6 CO2 concentration in 2100; ppm CO2; 586; 340; 5 - 7 Global temperature change in 2100; °C from 1900; 2.61; 0.9; 5 - 1

xvi — xvii, 69 — 80; McKinsey & Company, Pathways to a Low Carbon Economy: Version 2 of the Global Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curve (London: 2009).

Item Optimal Carbon Price Low - cost backstop Benefits (Reduced damages) 5.23 17.63 Abatement Cost 2.16 0.44 Net Benefit of policy 3.37 17.19 Implied CO2 Tax 202.4 4.1 CO2 emissions in 2100 (Gt C / a) 11 0 CO2 concentration in 2100 (ppm CO2) 586 340 Global temperature change in 2100 (°C from 1900) 2.61cost backstop Benefits (Reduced damages) 5.23 17.63 Abatement Cost 2.16 0.44 Net Benefit of policy 3.37 17.19 Implied CO2 Tax 202.4 4.1 CO2 emissions in 2100 (Gt C / a) 11 0 CO2 concentration in 2100 (ppm CO2) 586 340 Global temperature change in 2100 (°C from 1900) 2.61Cost 2.16 0.44 Net Benefit of policy 3.37 17.19 Implied CO2 Tax 202.4 4.1 CO2 emissions in 2100 (Gt C / a) 11 0 CO2 concentration in 2100 (ppm CO2) 586 340 Global temperature change in 2100 (°C from 1900) 2.61 0.9

This example brings us all the way back to the start of my essay, and the central problem for advocates of aggressive emissions abatement advocates: despite the rhetoric, the projected damages from global warming just don't appear to justify the costs of the proposed remedy.

In general, available top ‐ down estimates of costs and potentials suggest that AFOLU mitigation will be an important part of a global cost ‐ effective abatement strategy.

First, climate protection is a public good that requires collective action, because firms and individuals will not otherwise bear the private costs needed to achieve the global benefits of abatement.

With such staggering abatement costs, it matters how bad the effects of man - made global warming will be.

Zhang, ZhongXiang (2001): An economic assessment of the Kyoto Protocol using a global model based on the marginal abatement costs of 12 regions.

The market mechanism would ensure that the prices were equalized across different countries, and this would lead to equalizing marginal costs of abatement across countries and to a global minimum cost.

Using a global model based on the marginal abatement costs of 12 countries and regions, this paper estimates the contributions of the three Kyoto flexibility mechanisms to meet the total greenhouse gas emissions reductions required of Annex 1 countries under the three trading scenarios respectively.