Sentences with phrase «in abatement costs»

In the 1980s, tradable - permit systems were used to accomplish the phasedown of lead in gasoline -(at a savings of about $ 250 million per year), and to facilitate the phaseout of ozone - depleting chloroflourocarbons (CFCs); and in the 1990's, tradable permits were used to implement stricter air pollution controls in the Los Angeles metropolitan region, and — most important of all — a cap - and - trade system was adopted to reduce sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions and consequent acid rain by 50 percent under the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 (saving about $ 1 billion per year in abatement costs).

Not exact matches

Deployment of CCS will drive learning, and the lowered future abatement costs from deploying a new technology will benefit Alberta, and so it makes sense in this case for the government to bear some of the costs of this risky investment.

He said negotiations failed around three major issues, including raising the age of criminal responsibility from 16 to 18, a potential cost shift from public schools to charter schools and a real estate tax abatement program in New York City.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo's proposed replacement to 421a could cost NYC $ 8.4 billion in property tax revenue over the next 10 years, according to a new report that perhaps further fuels the sniping between Albany and City Hall over the lapsed abatement.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo's proposed replacement to 421a could cost the city $ 8.4 billion in property tax revenue over the next 10 years, according to a new report that perhaps further fuels the sniping between Albany and City Hall over the lapsed abatement.

The bill, sponsored by Senate Housing Committee Chairwoman Catharine Young (R - Cattaraugus), would cost the city nearly $ 2 billion in lost revenue by capping the taxes of building owners who have already received abatements, administration officials said.

To breach this impasse, a mechanism supporting accelerated energy research is needed that seeks to reduce future abatement costs, share experience and «learning - by - doing» in first - of - a-kind demonstrations, and thus facilitate future widespread deployments.

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 GHG abatement curve prepared by the consultancy McKinsey, above, shows that cost - effective CDR technologies (highlighted in orange) can help reduce the overall cost of decarbonization.

Of note is that McKinsey only considered GHG abatement options that they expected would cost less than 80 Euros / tCO2 in 2030, whereas the full CDR supply curve includes a number of approaches well above that threshold.

In order for the Federal Government's incentives for electric cars to be purposeful and effective, the abatement cost for hybrid vehicle incentives had to be as high as $ 217 / tCO2 (Tseng et al. 2013).

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.

In fact, even though they consistently exaggerate the economic costs of emission abatement, all of the economic models show that the economic impact of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol would be disappearingly small.

Differences in carbon prices can be attributed to differences in reference scenario emissions, and thus the level of abatement required, along with differences in the cost of abatement technologies.

Investing in super and ultra-supercritical technologies in India remains a cost - effective carbon abatement alternative compared to investment in other generation technologies.

Bio-SNG (Synthetic Natural Gas) delivered via the gas grid offers CO2 lifecycle savings of up to 90 % compared with fossil fuel alternatives, and offer sa more cost - effective solution than electricity for carbon abatement in transport applications, according to a new... Read more →

Investors need long run signals to develop new low - cost, lower - emitting technologies, which will be essential to drive abatement in the developing world, where emissions are projected to grow the most.

Bio-SNG (Synthetic Natural Gas) delivered via the gas grid offers CO2 lifecycle savings of up to 90 % compared with fossil fuel alternatives, and offer sa more cost - effective solution than electricity for carbon abatement in transport applications, according to a new feasibility study published by National Grid (UK), the North East Process Industry Cluster (NEPIC) and Centrica.

Japan, for example, has already made considerable investments into energy efficiency improvements, so its marginal abatement cost is higher than in countries that have not done so.

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.

Therefore, in arguing policy, I suggest we should compare policy options on the basis of the «CO2 abatement cost» of different policies.

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».

Just to keep the costs in perspective with alternatives here are the alternatives again: — Current EU carbon price = $ 10 / t CO2 — Estimated abatement cost with renewable energy in Australia = $ 300 / t CO2 [3]-- Estimated abatement cost with nuclear energy in Australia = $ 65 / t CO2 — Nordhaus «Low - cost backstop» technology (assumes) = $ 270 / t CO2 [4]-- CO2 Abatement cost if / when we allow low - cost nuclear = < $ 0 / t CO2 [5, 6,abatement cost with renewable energy in Australia = $ 300 / t CO2 [3]-- Estimated abatement cost with nuclear energy in Australia = $ 65 / t CO2 — Nordhaus «Low - cost backstop» technology (assumes) = $ 270 / t CO2 [4]-- CO2 Abatement cost if / when we allow low - cost nuclear = < $ 0 / t CO2 [5, 6,abatement cost with nuclear energy in Australia = $ 65 / t CO2 — Nordhaus «Low - cost backstop» technology (assumes) = $ 270 / t CO2 [4]-- CO2 Abatement cost if / when we allow low - cost nuclear = < $ 0 / t CO2 [5, 6,Abatement cost if / when we allow low - cost nuclear = < $ 0 / t CO2 [5, 6, 7, 8, 9]

-- Estimated abatement cost with renewable energy in Australia = $ 300 / t CO2 — Estimated abatement cost with nuclear energy in Australia = $ 65 / t CO2 — Nordhaus «Low - cost backstop» technology (assumes) = $ 270 / t CO2 — CO2 Abatement cost if / when we allow low - cost nuclear = < $ abatement cost with renewable energy in Australia = $ 300 / t CO2 — Estimated abatement cost with nuclear energy in Australia = $ 65 / t CO2 — Nordhaus «Low - cost backstop» technology (assumes) = $ 270 / t CO2 — CO2 Abatement cost if / when we allow low - cost nuclear = < $ abatement cost with nuclear energy in Australia = $ 65 / t CO2 — Nordhaus «Low - cost backstop» technology (assumes) = $ 270 / t CO2 — CO2 Abatement cost if / when we allow low - cost nuclear = < $ Abatement cost if / when we allow low - cost nuclear = < $ 0 / t CO2

In fact, it is better by 3 times, 5 times, 5 times and 49 times for Benefits, Abatement Cost, Net Benefit, and Implied Carbon Tax rate.

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.

Amid all the wailing and gnashing of teeth in many Anglo countries about the cost of carbon abatement and clean energy, the European Union remains steadfast in its belief that's investing in the future is a lot cheaper than business as usual.

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.

There is the possibility of basing hundreds of trillions of dollars in CO2 abatement costs upon a logically incorrect conclusion.

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

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

Cigarette Litter Abatement Fee Ordinance Establishes a fee of $ 0.40 per pack of cigarettes sold in San Francisco to recover the cost of cigarette litter clean - up from city streets, sidewalks, and other public properties.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The emissions price must also rise at roughly the rate of interest (about five percent) over time (to equate the discounted marginal abatement costs at different points in time).

Second, it is the least costly approach in the short term, because abatement costs are exceptionally heterogeneous across sources.

Mariam, Yohannes and Barre, Mike (1996): VOCs's Cost functions in the Design of Emission Abatement Strategies.

The Department of Commerce, in consultation with the Washington State University (WSU) Extension Energy Program, will analyze carbon reduction opportunities which may include a marginal abatement cost curve providing guidance on the cost to reduce emissions in various sectors with various technologies.

Halkos, George and Kevork, Ilias and Tziourtzioumis, Chris (2014): Emissions and abatement costs for the passenger cars sector in Greece.

If the SCC can be shown to be negative at current levels of abatement (and bear in mind that your excellent chart of net benefits for various abatement paths refers to benefits relative to the 2010 policy stance) then I'd be content to freeze policy at current levels but to steadily transfer all policies to a carbon tax, or at least to cost them on a common basis, ie to treat renewable subsidies as implicit carbon taxes.

At the request of Changning District government, the Bank team supported a Shanghai energy conservation institution, assisted by an international firm, in conducting a comprehensive survey of buildings in Hongqiao area in the Changning District, and in developing CO2 abatement cost curves to identify the abatement potential, cost, and ease of implementation of various mitigation measures.

Further, if we begin such an abatement program as was desired by many environmental leaders in Bali, then these abatement costs in terms of lost growth and poverty will be certain.

One additional large cost to CO2 abatement will be the loss of freedoms we experience, from the small (reduced choice in cars) to the problematic (limits on airplane flights) to the real hardships (limits on children).

In the latest UN climate «warning,» the UN argues that the costs of CO2 abatement are not all that high because we have to offset these costs with ancillary benefits of these actions.

If you also include the value of avoided fossil fuel use in this calculation, the total GHG abatement cost of the whole system would come out even lower (i.e. around $ 10 / t CO2 - equivalent).

The starting point is a set of detailed assessments of the cost and abatement potential of the various technologies identified in the CCC's «Fourth Carbon Budget Review».

This factsheet covers end - use energy efficiency, in particular for products and buildings, and how this can become the most successful, cost effective, greenhouse gas emission abatement measure used by each and every country.

One way of achieving that is to allow transfer of funds through a Clean Development Mechanism, such as the one available in the European trading scheme, which allows polluters in Europe to pay for emissions abatement in places such as China if that is more cost - effective than reducing pollution themselves.