Countries with low marginal costs of abating carbon emissions may have high total costs, and vice versa, for a given climate mitigation policy. This may help to explain different countries' policy stances on climate mitigation. We hypothesize that, under a common percentage cut in emissions intensity relative to business as usual (BAU), countries with higher BAU emission intensities have lower marginal abatement costs, but total costs relative to output will be similar across countries, and under a common carbon price, relative total costs are higher in emission-intensive countries. Using the results of the 22nd Energy Modeling Forum (EMF-22), we estimate marginal abatement cost curves for the US, EU, China and India, which we use to estimate marginal and total costs of abatement under a number of policy options currently under international debate. This analysis provides support for our hypotheses, although its reliability is limited by the shortcomings of the EMF-22 models and the degree to which our econometric model can adequately account for the substantial differences among them.
The objective of a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions trading scheme (ETS) is to reduce emissions by transitioning the economy away from the production and consumption of goods and services that are GHG intensive. A GHG ETS has been a public policy issue in Australia for over a decade. The latest policy initiative on an ETS is the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). A substantial share of Australia's total GHG reduction under the CPRS is expected to come from the electricity generation sector. This paper surveys the literature on investment behaviour under an ETS. It specifically focuses on the relationship between the design of an ETS and a generator's decisions to invest in low emissions plant and retire high emissions plant. The proposed CPRS provides the context for presenting key findings along with the implications for the electricity generation sector's transition to lower emissions plant. The literature shows that design features such as the method of allocating permits, the stringency of the emissions cap along with permit price uncertainty, provisions for banking, borrowing and internationally trading permits, and the credibility of emissions caps and policy uncertainty may all significantly impact on the investment and retirement behaviour of generators.
What are the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)? The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are air quality standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for six "criteria pollutants" which are among the most harmful to public health and the environment. Since the amendment of the Clean Air Act (CAA) in 1990, EPA is required to set NAAQS for the criteria pollutants. The law requires EPA to review these standards once every five years to determine if they are appropriate or if new standards are needed to protect public health. In South Carolina, DHEC is the agency responsible for monitoring air quality and reporting to EPA the levels of each of these pollutants in our air. What are the "criteria pollutants" and where do they come from? Ground-level ozone forms in the air when two other types of pollutants, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides, react in the presence of sunlight. The VOCs that form ozone come from vehicle and industrial exhaust as well as evaporated gasoline, solvents, paints and many other sources. Particulate matter and nitrogen oxides come from diesel cars, trucks and buses, power plants, industries and many other sources. Carbon monoxide results from the incomplete burning of fuels from cars, buses, trucks, small engines, boilers and some industrial processes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.