Cost Concepts for Climate Change Mitigation

Paltsev, Sergey; Capros, Pantélis

doi:10.1142/s2010007813400034

Cited by 49 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We calculate policy cost (reported for the year 2030 in 2006 U.S. dollars) as the difference in simulated economic welfare, which includes macroeconomic consumption (capturing market-based activities), and the monetary value of nonworking time (leisure) (Paltsev and Capros, 2013).…”

Section: United States Regional Energy Policy Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Air quality co-benefits of subnational carbon policies

Thompson

Rausch

Saari

et al. 2016

Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To mitigate climate change, governments ranging from city to multi-national have adopted greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets. While the location of GHG reductions does not affect their climate benefits, it can impact human health benefits associated with co-emitted pollutants. Here, an advanced modeling framework is used to explore how subnational level GHG targets influence air pollutant co-benefits from ground level ozone and fine particulate matter. Two carbon policy scenarios are analyzed, each reducing the same total amount of GHG emissions in the Northeast US: an economy-wide Cap and Trade (CAT) program reducing emissions from all sectors of the economy, and a Clean Energy Standard (CES) reducing emissions from the electricity sector only. Results suggest that a regional CES policy will cost about 10 times more than a CAT policy. Despite having the same regional targets in the Northeast, carbon leakage to noncapped regions varies between policies. Consequently, a regional CAT policy will result in national carbon reductions that are over six times greater than the carbon reduced by the CES in 2030. Monetized regional human health benefits of the CAT and CES policies are 844% and 185% of the costs of each policy, respectively. Benefits for both policies are thus estimated to exceed their costs in the Northeast US. The estimated value of human health co-benefits associated with air pollution reductions for the CES scenario is two times that of the CAT scenario.Implications: In this research, an advanced modeling framework is used to determine the potential impacts of regional carbon policies on air pollution co-benefits associated with ground level ozone and fine particulate matter. Study results show that spatially heterogeneous GHG policies have the potential to create areas of air pollution dis-benefit. It is also shown that monetized human health benefits within the area covered by policy may be larger than the model estimated cost of the policy. These findings are of particular interest both as U.S. states work to develop plans to meet state-level carbon emissions reduction targets set by the EPA through the Clean Power Plan, and in the absence of comprehensive national carbon policy.PAPER HISTORY

show abstract

Section: United States Regional Energy Policy Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Air quality co-benefits of subnational carbon policies

Thompson

Rausch

Saari

et al. 2016

Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Note that PRIMES provides the results of the "delayed CCS" scenario of the EU Energy Roadmap with limited CCS (instead of no CCS). and compare alternative mitigation cost metrics (Paltsev and Capros, 2013). Knopf et al (2013) explore the interplay between the transformation of the energy system at the European level and at the level of EU Member States.…”

Section: %Glob_effmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Emission prices are indicators of the relative scarcity of emission allowances and therefore of the stringency of the mitigation challenge. GDP and consumption losses are indicators of economic costs (see Paltsev and Capros (2013) for a discussion on costs concepts and metrics).…”

Section: Eu Decarbonization Strategies -Feasibility and Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Paltsev and Capros (2013) consider the cost concepts used to assess carbon policies in different types of models including changes in GDP, changes in consumption, changes in welfare, energy system costs, and the area under the MAC curve. This section concentrates on the reduction of GDP in the mitigation scenarios and only briefly mentions other cost measures.…”

Section: Costs Of Eu Decarbonizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Beyond 2020 — Strategies and Costs for Transforming the European Energy System

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Energy Modeling Forum 28 (EMF28) study systematically explores the energy system transition required to meet the European goal of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 80% by 2050. The 80% scenario is compared to a reference case that aims to achieve a 40% GHG reduction target. The paper investigates mitigation strategies beyond 2020 and the interplay between different decarbonization options. The models present different technology pathways for the decarbonization of Europe, but a common finding across the scenarios and § § Corresponding author. This is an Open Access article published by World Scientific Publishing Company. It is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC-BY) License. Further distribution of this work is permitted, provided the original work is properly cited.Climate Change Economics, Vol. 4, Suppl. 1 (2013) models is the prominent role of energy efficiency and renewable energy sources. In particular, wind power and bioenergy increase considerably beyond current deployment levels. Up to 2030, the transformation strategies are similar across all models and for both levels of emission reduction. However, mitigation becomes more challenging after 2040. With some exceptions, our analysis agrees with the main findings of the "Energy Roadmap 2050" presented by the European Commission.

show abstract

“…Welfare change is a measure of climate policy cost (Paltsev and Capros, 2013). Following standard economic theory, we calculate and report the overall economic cost of the policy scenarios using a dollar-based measure of the change in welfare for the representative agent in China.…”

Section: Policy Costmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Future of Natural Gas in China: Effects of Pricing Reform and Climate Policy

Zhang

Paltsev

2016

Clim. Change Econ.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

China is currently attempting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase natural gas consumption as a part of broader national strategies to reduce the air pollution impacts of the nation's energy system. To assess the scenarios of natural gas development up to 2050, we employ a global energy-economic model -the MIT Economic Projection and Policy Analysis (EPPA) model. The results show that a cap-and-trade policy will enable China to achieve its climate mitigation goals, but will also reduce natural gas consumption. An integrated policy that uses a part of the carbon revenue obtained from the cap-and-trade system to subsidize natural gas use promotes natural gas consumption, resulting in a further reduction in coal use relative to the cap-and-trade policy case. The integrated policy has a very moderate welfare cost; however, it reduces air pollution and allows China to achieve both the climate objective and the natural gas promotion objective.

show abstract

Cost Concepts for Climate Change Mitigation

Cited by 49 publications

References 23 publications

Air quality co-benefits of subnational carbon policies

Air quality co-benefits of subnational carbon policies

Beyond 2020 — Strategies and Costs for Transforming the European Energy System

The Future of Natural Gas in China: Effects of Pricing Reform and Climate Policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About