|
Question 7
What is known about the potential for, and
costs and benefits of, and time frame for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions?
- What would be the economic and social costs and benefits and
equity implications of options for policies and measures, and
the mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol, that might be considered
to address climate change regionally and globally?
- What portfolios of options of research and development, investments,
and other policies might be considered that would be most effective
to enhance the development and deployment of technologies that
address climate change?
- What kind of economic and other policy options might be considered
to remove existing and potential barriers and to stimulate private-
and public sector technology transfer and deployment among countries,
and what effect might these have on projected emissions?
- How does the timing of the options contained in the above affect
associated economic costs and benefits, and the atmospheric concentrations
of greenhouse gases over the next century and beyond?
|
|
|
|
|
7.1
|
This question focuses on the potential for, and costs of, mitigation
both in the near and long term. The issue of the primary mitigation benefits
(the avoided costs and damages of slowing climate change) is addressed
in Questions 5 and 6, and
that of ancillary mitigation benefits is addressed in this response and
the one to Question 8. This response describes a
variety of factors that contribute to significant differences and uncertainties
in the quantitative estimates of the costs of mitigation options. The
SAR described two categories of approaches to estimating costs: bottom-up
approaches, which often assess near-term cost and potential, and are built
up from assessments of specific technologies and sectors; and top-down
approaches, which proceed from macro-economic relationships. These two
approaches lead to differences in the estimates of costs, which have been
narrowed since the SAR. The response below reports on cost estimates from
both approaches for the near term, and from the top-down approach for
the long term. Mitigation options and their potential to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions and sequester carbon are discussed first. This is followed
by a discussion of the costs for achieving emissions reductions to meet
near-term emissions constraints, and long-term stabilization goals, and
the timing of reductions to achieve such goals. This response concludes
with a discussion of equity as it relates to climate change mitigation.
|
|
|
Potential, Barriers, Opportunities, Policies, and
Costs of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Near Term
|
|
7.2
|
Significant technological and biological potential
exists for near-term mitigation.
|
|
7.3 |
Significant technical progress relevant to greenhouse
gas emissions reduction has been made since the SAR, and has been faster
than anticipated. Advances are taking place in a wide range of
technologies at different stages of evelopment -- for example, the market
introduction of wind turbines; the rapid elimination of industrial by-product
gases, such as N2O from adipic acid production and perfluorocarbons
from aluminum production; efficient hybrid engine cars; the advancement
of fuel cell technology; and the demonstration of underground CO2 storage.
Technological options for emissions reduction include improved efficiency
of end-use devices and energy conversion technologies, shift to zero-
and low-carbon energy technologies, improved energy management, reduction
of industrial by-product and process gas emissions, and carbon removal
and storage. Table 7-1 summarizes the results from many sectoral studies,
largely at the project, national, and regional level with some at the
global level, providing estimates of potential greenhouse gas emissions
reductions to the 2010 and 2020 time frame.
|
WGIII TAR Sections 3.3-8,
& WGIII TAR Chapter 3 Appendix |
7.4
|
Forests, agricultural lands, and other
terrestrial ecosystems offer significant carbon mitigation potential.
Conservation and sequestration of carbon, although not necessarily permanent,
may allow time for other options to be further developed and implemented
(see Table 7-2). Biological
mitigation can occur by three strategies: a) conservation of existing
carbon pools, b) sequestration by increasing the size of carbon pools,13
and c) substitution of sustainably produced biological products (e.g.,
wood for energy-intensive construction products and biomass for fossil
fuels). Conservation of threatened carbon pools may help to avoid emissions,
if leakage can be prevented, and can only become sustainable if the socio-economic
drivers for deforestation and other losses of carbon pools can be addressed.
Sequestration reflects the biological dynamics of growth, often starting
slowly, passing through a maximum, and then declining over decades to
centuries. The potential of biological mitigation options is on the order
of 100 Gt C (cumulative) by the year 2050, equivalent to about 10 to 20%
of projected fossil-fuel emissions during that period, although there
are substantial uncertainties associated with this estimate. Realization
of this potential depends upon land and water availability as well as
the rates of adoption of land management practices. The largest biological
potential for atmospheric carbon mitigation is in subtropical and tropical
regions.
|
WGIII TAR Sections 3.6.4 & 4.2-4,
& SRLULUCF |
|
Table
7-1: Estimates of potential global greenhouse gas emission reductions
in 2010 and in 2020 (WGIII
SPM Table SPM-1). |
Sector |
Historic Emissions in 1990
[Mt Ceq yr-1] |
Historic Ceq
Annual Growth Rate over 1990-1995 [%] |
Potential Emission Reductions in 2010
[Mt Ceq yr-1] |
Potential Emission Reductions in 2020
[Mt Ceq yr-1] |
Net Direct Costs per Tonne
of Carbon Avoided |
Buildingsa CO2 only |
1,650 |
1.0 |
700-750 |
1,000-1,100 |
Most reductions are available at negative net direct
costs. |
Transport
CO2 only |
1,080
|
2.4 |
100-300 |
300-700 |
Most studies indicate net direct costs less than US$25
per t C but two suggest net direct costs will exceed US$50 per t C. |
Industry
CO2 only
- Energy efficiency
- Material efficiency |
2,300 |
0.4 |
300-500
~200 |
700-900
~600 |
More than half available at net negative direct costs.
Costs are uncertain. |
Industry
Non-CO2 gases |
170
|
|
~100 |
~100 |
N2O emissions reduction costs are US$0-10
per t Ceq. |
Agricultureb
CO2 only
Non-CO2 gases |
210
1,250-2,800 |
n/a |
150-300 |
350-750 |
Most reductions will cost between US$0-100 per
t C eq with limited opportunities for negative net direct cost options. |
Wasteb
CH4 only |
240 |
1.0 |
~200 |
~200 |
About 75% of the savings as CH4 recovery
from landfills at net negative direct cost; 25% at a cost of US$20
per t Ceq. |
Montreal
Protocol replacement applications
Non-CO2 gases |
0 |
n/a |
~100 |
n/a |
About half of reductions due to difference in study
baseline and SRES baseline values. Remaining half of the reductions
available at net direct costs below US$200 per t Ceq. |
Energy
supply and
conversionc
CO2 only |
(1,620) |
1.5 |
50-150 |
350-700 |
Limited net negative direct cost options exist; many
options are available for less than US$100 per t Ceq. |
Total |
6,900-8,400d |
|
1,900-2,600e |
3,600-5,050e |
|
a. Buildings include appliances, buildings, and the
building shell.
b. The range for agriculture is mainly caused by
large uncertainties about CH4, N2O, and soil-related
emissions of CO2. Waste is dominated by methane landfill
and the other sectors could be estimated with more precision as they
are dominated by fossil CO2.
c. Included in sector values above. Reductions include
electricity generation options only (fuel switching to gas/nuclear,
CO2 capture and storage, improved power station efficiencies,
and renewables).
d. Total includes all sectors reviewed in WGIII
TAR Chapter 3 for all six gases. It excludes non-energy related
sources of CO2 (cement production, 160 Mt C; gas flaring,
60 Mt C; and land-use change, 600-1,400 Mt C) and energy used
for conversion of fuels in the end-use sector totals (630 Mt C). If
petroleum refining and coke oven gas were added, global year 1990
CO2 emissions of 7,100 Mt C would increase by 12%. Note
that forestry emissions and their carbon sink mitigation options are
not included.
e. The baseline SRES scenarios (for six gases included
in the Kyoto Protocol) project a range of emissions of 1,500-14,000
Mt C eq for the year 2010 and of 12,000-16,000 Mt Ceq
for the year 2020. The emissions reduction estimates are most compatible
with baseline emissions trends in the SRES B2 scenario. The potential
reductions take into account regular turnover of capital stock. They
are not limited to cost-effective options, but exclude options with
costs above US$100 t Ceq (except for Montreal Protocol
gases) or options that will not be adopted through the use of generally
accepted policies. |
|
|
|
|