Climate Change 2001:
Working Group III: Mitigation
Other reports in this collection

10.4.6 Towards what Objective Should the Response Be Targetted? High versus Low Stabilization Levels– Insights on Mitigation

In a rational world, the ultimate level of climate and thus GHG concentration stabilization would emerge from a political process in which the global community would weigh mitigation costs and the averted damages associated with different levels of stabilization. Also weighed would be the risks of triggering systemic changes in large geophysical systems, like ocean circulation, or other irreversible impacts. In reality, the political process will inevitably be influenced by the distribution of positive and negative effects of climate change, as well as by the costs of mitigation among countries, largely determined by how risks, costs, environmental values, and development aspirations are weighed in different regions and cultures. This process will be strongly influenced by new scientific and technical knowledge and by experience gained in making and implementing policy. The climate change literature contains a diversity of arguments as to why either a low level or a relatively high level of stabilization is desirable (IPCC, 2001b).

Given the large uncertainties that characterize each component of the climate change problem, it is impossible to establish a globally acceptable level of stabilized GHG concentrations today. Studies discussed in this section and summarized in Table 10.11 support the obvious expectations that lower stabilization targets involve exponentially higher mitigation costs and relatively more ambitious near-term emissions reductions, but, as reported by WGII (IPCC, 2001b), lower targets induce significantly smaller biological and geophysical impacts and thus induce smaller damages and adaptation costs.

Table 10.11: Selected studies on global mitigation costs for different stabilization targets
Study Scenarios & dimensions 450ppmv 550ppmv 650ppmv 750ppmv 850ppmv Notes
Nordhaus and Boyer (1999) RICE-98 billion 1990 US$  
      discounted (d) back to 1950
IAM
net impacts on global welfare   335.00      
difference from base (=0)          
mitigation   459.00      
reduction in cl.damage   794.00      
               
Valverde and Webster (1999) MIT-EPPA 1.6 in billion 1985 US$           1985-2100, 5 year time steps
d= 5%
500a global emissions path   (500ppmv)      
all nations equal % abatement          
OECD: no trade   272.50      
OECD: trade   272.40      
Non-OECD: no trade   216.30      
Non-OECD: trade   216.20      
Global: no trade   488.90      
Global trade   488.60      
               
Manne and Richels (1999b)
MERGE 3.0
billion of 1990 US$            

Kyoto followed by arbitrary reduc.

  2400.00       consumption loss through 2100
d=5% to 1990
Kyoto followed by least-cost   900.00      
least cost   650.00      
               
Tol (1999c), FUND percentage of world income, median     2.1%     average annual income loss
9 regions, 5 sectors in 2100
               
Ha-Duong et al. (1997)
DIAM
percentage of 1990 GWP           d=3%
average annual costs period 2000–21000
inertia of 50 years 1.1%        
               
Lecocq et al. (1998)
STARTS
percentage           average annual costs period 2000-2100 differential inertia in sectors
abatement costs as consumption loss          
compared to BAU in          
A: flexible sector   1,5%      
B: rigid sector   0.4%      
               
Yohe and Wallace (1996) Connecticut percent of GWP as costs   16.40 to 16.69 5.94 to 7.09 2.84 to 4.24 1.59 to 3.05 d, expected present value 7 scenarios
in 1990, no benefit side          
one percentage point is          
~210 billion US$          
               
Dowlatabadi (1998) ICAM-3 percentage of GDP as costs   0.05 to 0.48       period: 2000–20025 sequential learning framework mitigation costs for the USA and Canada only
mitigation costs within 9 scenarios          
with different technical change in          
energy sector          
               
Richels a. Edmonds (1995)
Global 2100 & ERB
percentage of GWP as costs (400) (500)       d=5%
stabilization in 2100
Global 2100
Manne/Richels
ERB: Edmonds-Reilly-Barns (1992)
Sc:500a: follow BAU through 2010   Gl 2100: 0.6 %; ERB: 0.7%      
Sc: 500b: between 500a & stab.   Gl 2100: 0.9 %; ERB: 0.95%      
Sc: Emission stabilization at   Gl 2100: 1.15 %; ERB: 1.1%      
1990 level Gl: 0.9%; ERB:1.1% Gl:0.6%; ERB: 0.7%      
               
Plambeck, Hope (1996)
PAGE95
in trillion US$           d= 5 %, 1990-2200
further scenarios not listedhere, e.g., non-linear etc.
BAU + 100 GtC 2.50        
BAU 2.20        
               
Yohe and Jacobsen
(1999) Connecticut
trillion 1990 US$           d= 3 % through 2100
(Ramsey)
cost study in terms of deadweight loss, no opt
A: alt. sink specifications
B: alt. emissions targets for 2010
annual control costs of 7 sc          
Minimum cost: Sc3 to Sc7 A: 10.13 to 44.40 A: 2.11 to 16.12 A: 0.36 to 7.24    
Cost with Kyoto: Sc3 to Sc7 A: 10.47 to 47.04 A: 2.12 to 16.19 A: 0.40 to 7.26    
Minimum cost minus 10 % emis. B: 10.13 to 44.40 B: 2.11 to 16.12 B: 0.36 to 7.24    
Cost with Kyoto minus 10 % B: 10.40 to 46.77 B: 2.13 to 16.16 B: 0.42 to 7.28    
               
Manne (1995)
MERGE
trillion 1990 US$ (415 ppmv)         d= 5 % to 1990
global damage 1.90        
benefits of stab. as reduced dam. 2.50        
costs of stab. 18.50        
               
Manne and Richels (1997) MERGE 3.0 trillion 1990 US$           d= 5% to 1990
1990- 2100
non- market and market damages
WGI: w/ o where flex. 14.20 9.00 5.00 3.00  
WGI: with where flex 7.00 4.00 2.00 1.2  
WRE: w/ o where flex 5.50 2.00 1.00 1.00  
WRE: with where flex 3.50 1.00 0.6 0.50  
least cost: with where flex   0.60      
WGI: Annex- 1- trade   5.90      
10% cut in 2010: A- 1- trade   2.30      
WRE: A- 1- trade   0.90      
               
Tol (1999d), FUND 1.6 trillion net present costs in US$           5% through 2050
damage per year in billion US$: 216
WGI: no trade   17.5 10.50  
WGI: trade   8.0 4.00  
WRE: no trade   16.0 10.00  
WRE: trade   4.0 2.00  
               
Tol (1999a) FUND 1.6 in trillion US$   below 550       d= 5% per year to 1990
consumption losses p.a. period 1990- 2200
Minimum Cost   2.4      
Min. Cost meeting Kyoto, trade   3.1      
Min. Cost meeting Kyoto   3.7      
2 % reduction, intern. trade   4.0      
meeting Kyoto, trade   4.4      
meeting Kyoto, no trade   14.6      



Other reports in this collection