Mitigation from a cross-sectoral perspective

This paper examines the role of climate forcing agents other than carbon dioxide using the MiniCAM integrated assessment model. Non-CO2 greenhouse gases are particularly important through the middle of the 21st century. The addition of non-CO2 greenhouse gases abatement options significantly reduces mitigation costs in the first half of the century as compared to a case where only CO2 abatement options are pursued. Non-CO2 greenhouse gas forcing is dominated by methane and tropospheric ozone. Assumptions about the prevalence of methane recovery and local air pollution controls are a critical determinant of reference forcing from these two gases. While the influence of aerosols are small by the end of the century, there is a significant interaction between a climate policy and aerosol cooling near mid-century such that global-mean climate change to 2050 is practically unaffected by mitigation policy.

Multi-Gas Forcing Stabilization with Minicam

recently completed international collaboration under Stanford University's Energy Modeling Forum (EMF)1. The EMF was started in 1976 as an organized forum for discussion and evaluation of important energy and environmental issues. The EMF operates mainly around organized working groups that focus their work by comparing the results of different economic, market, and planning models. Participants in EMF are leading energy and economics experts and advisors from industry, universities, government, and other research organizations. On the topic of climate change mitigation, recent EMF working groups include: EMF-16, The Costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation,

/pdf/overview-of-emf-21-multigas-mitigation-and-climate-policy-2gfyyc6ohk.pdf

Overview of EMF-21: Multigas Mitigation and Climate Policy

The non-CO2 greenhouse gases have so far jointly contributed around 40 percent to overall global warming. In this paper we examine the role of non-CO2 greenhouse gases in meeting long-term climate change targets. For this purpose, we develop climate mitigation scenarios aimed at achieving long-term stabilization of global radiative forcing. We use the MESSAGE model for a thorough bottom-up representation of the six Kyoto greenhouse gases and corresponding mitigation technologies. This approach endogenizes energy feedback effects from mitigation of non-CO2 gases and takes into account the interplay and side benefits that exist across GHGs. We analyze two mitigation scenarios that stabilize global radiative forcing at 4.5 W/m2 as compared to pre-industrial timesone allowing only for CO2 mitigation and another with multigas mitigation. In addition, we also investigate a lower stabilization level of 3 W/m2 and look into the implications this has for abatement strategies. Our approach helps us to identify a portfolio of measures in the energy, industry and agricultural sectors for achieving a proposed climate target. We find that considering the full basket of GHGs improves the effectiveness of the mitigation portfolio resulting in significantly lower costs, especially in the short term. In the long run, the bulk of the emissions reductions are still found to come from CO2 and this effect becomes more pronounced under the more stringent climate target. This emphasizes the importance of a diverse mitigation portfolio that includes both CO2 and non-CO2 related abatement options in meeting long-term climate targets.

/pdf/the-role-of-non-co2-greenhouse-gases-in-climate-change-al448ozwkl.pdf

The role of non-CO2 greenhouse gases in climate change mitigation: Long-term scenarios for the 21st century

This paper presents a set of multi-gas mitigation scenarios that aim for stabilisation of greenhouse gas radiative forcing in 2150 at levels from 3.7 to 5.3 W/m2. At the moment, non-CO gasses (methane, nitrous oxide, PFCs, HFCs and SFJ contribute to about a quarter of the global emissions. The analysis shows that including these non-CO2 gases in mitigation analysis is crucial in formulating a cost-effective response. For stabilisation at 4.5 W/m2, a multi-gas approach leads to 40% lower costs than an approach that would focus at C02 only. Within the assumptions used in this study, the non-CO gasses contribution to total reduction is very large under less stringent targets (up to 60%), but declines under stringent targets. While stabilising at 3.7 W/m2 obviously leads to larger environmental benefits than the 4.5 W/m2 case (temperature increase in 2100 are 1.9 and 2.3°C, respectively), the costs of the lower target are higher (0.80% and 0.34% of GDP in 2100, respectively). Improving knowledge on how future reduction potential for non-CO2 gasses could develop is shown to be a crucial research question.

/pdf/long-term-multi-gas-scenarios-to-stabilise-radiative-forcing-9ncbx3y5if.pdf

Long-Term Multi-Gas Scenarios to Stabilise Radiative Forcing – Exploring Costs and Benefits Within an Integrated Assessment Framework

Traditionally, economic analyses of greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation focused on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from energy sources, while nonCO2 GHGs were not incorporated into the studies, due to the lack of data on abatement costs of non-CO2 GHGs. In recent years, however, increasing attention has been dedicated to the benefits of reducing emissions of non-CO2 GHGs such as methane and nitrous oxide. Increased attention to the potential role of these gases in a GHG reduction policy increased the need for better data on the costs of non-CO2 GHG abatement for countries and regions outside of the US and the European Union (EU). Using a net present value calculation, this analysis develops regionally adjusted costs per mitigation option and marginal abatement cost curves by region for use in economic models. The result is worldwide cost estimates for methane and nitrous oxide from waste, energy and the industrial sectors. This paper also demonstrates the ability to significantly reduce greenhouse gases from these sectors with current technologies and the low cost of methane and nitrous oxide relative to CO reductions.

Mitigation of Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Waste, Energy and Industry

The cost of greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation over time depends on both the rate of technical change in leading-edge technologies and the diffusion of knowledge and capabilities throughout international markets. This paper presents a framework developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and RTI International (RTI) for incorporating technical change in non-CO2 GHG mitigation projections over time. An engineering (bottom-up) approach is used to model technical change as a set of price and productivity factors that change over time as a function of technology advances and the location of developing countries relative to the technology efficiency frontier. S-shaped diffusion curves are generated, which demonstrate the maturity of the market for a given technology in a given region. The framework is demonstrated for coal mine methane mitigation technologies in the United States and China, but it is applicable for the full range of technology adoption issues.

K. Casey Delhotal

Papers

Mitigation of Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Waste, Energy and Industry

Modeling the Impact of Technical Change on Emissions Abatement Investments in Developing Countries

Modeling the Impact of Technical Change on Emissions Abatement Investments in Developing Countries