Setting national emission ceilings for air pollutants: policy lessons from an ex-post evaluation of the Gothenburg Protocol

Integrated scenarios of energy-related CO2 emissions in Ireland: A multi-sectoral analysis to 2020

“…The dominant approach applies quantitative point forecasts 3 with accompanying forecast errors In energy and CO 2 emissions forecasting large absolute errors occur even on short time scales (Linderoth, 2002) sometimes concealing considerable errors in the sectors, particularly for industry and transport (Winebrake and Sakva, 2005). Errors observed in an Irish context have been noted (Kelly et al, 2010;Pilavachi et al, 2008). The reviews of Irelands' communications to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) noted a significant difference between recent short term projections and requested explanation (UNFCCC, 2009;UNFCCC, 2010).…”

Adaptive Policy Mechanisms for Transboundary Air Pollution Regulation: Reasons and Recommendations

“…The only freedom is the freedom to choose which options to engage to meet the defined level of abatement for each pollutant that will deliver compliance with the ceilings. Whilst ex ante modelling works in principle to ensure that options exist and the policies make sense, over time revisions to abatement technology efficiency, economic development or effect estimation, can all change the game (Kelly et al, 2010). The issue is that there is no allowance made for new outcomes or new evidence to influence the ceilings.…”

“…Indeed, the determination of ceilings requires a quite comprehensive forecasting of sectoral activity and technologies, as well as a clearly defined scientific perspective in regard to calculating incidence, cause, effect and atmospheric interaction of transboundary pollutants. Clearly this analytical process, which is followed in turn by a political process, includes the potential for considerable uncertainty and this has been borne out from the results of ex post analysis in the literature (Kelly et al, 2010, Pilavachi et al, 2008, Winebrake et al, 2006. This paper considers how we can best incorporate a degree of adaptation and flexibility within the o3 policy framework in respect of how compliance progress and evaluation 3 are managed.…”

“…However, as the 2010 process draws to a close 2 , discussions for future agreements with further ambitions are being actively discussed. Whilst the 2010 ceilings will have undoubtedly achieved significant progress in terms of environmental and health related improvements, there remain a number of lessons to be learned (see Kelly et al, 2010). This paper draws on the experiences from the 2010 process in order to evaluate the manner in which we set and manage future transboundary policy agreements.…”

“…Consider for example the implications of the ongoing international economic crisis on investment and activity. Also we have the specific and quantified technical failure of certain vehicle euro standards to deliver the expected on road abatement (Tzamkiozis et al, 2010, Kelly et al, 2010.A further example may be the impacts of the Eyjafjallajökull ash clouds of 2010, in regard to issues such as travel and welfare (Miller, 2011) and the moderate direct impact on emissions and air quality 5 A quantitative assessment is not feasible without defining specific structures of individual flexibilities and conducting multiple scenario assessments to identify a range of outcomes. This would unduly narrow the focus of our paper which is examining the broader motivations, design factors and considerations of a flexibility mechanism package.…”