When starting with the most expensive option makes sense: Optimal timing, cost and sectoral allocation of abatement investment

Abstract

This paper finds that it is optimal to start a long-term emission-reduction strategy with significant short-term abatement investment, even if the optimal carbon price starts low and grows progressively over time. Moreover, optimal marginal abatement investment costs differ across sectors of the economy. It may be preferable to spend $25 to avoid the marginal ton of carbon in a sector where abatement capital is expensive, such as public transportation, or in a sector with large abatement potential, such as the power sector, than $15 for the marginal ton in a sector with lower cost or lower abatement potential. The reason, distinct from learning spillovers, is that reducing greenhouse gas emissions requires investment in long-lived abatement capital such as clean power plants or public transport infrastructure. The value of abatement investment comes from avoided emissions, but also from the value of abatement capital in the future. The optimal levelized cost of conserved carbon can thus be higher than the optimal carbon price. It is higher in sectors with higher investment needs: those where abatement capital is more expensive or sectors with larger abatement potential. We compare our approach to the traditional abatement-cost-curve model and discuss implications for policy design. HighlightsThe same carbon price translates into different abatement investment costs in different sectors Sectors with higher emissions and more expensive abatement capital should invest more dollars per abated ton Abatement cost curves cannot be used to model abatement options that require investment in low-carbon capital * Corresponding author: Adrien Vogt-Schilb, avogtschilb@iadb.org, +1 202 623 2564Email addresses: avogtschilb@iadb.org (Adrien Vogt-Schilb), guy.meunier@ivry.inra.fr (Guy Meunier), shallegatte@worldbank.org (Stéphane Hallegatte) Preprint submitted to ElsevierNovember 10, 2017Keywords: climate change mitigation, transition to clean capital, path dependence, social cost of carbon, marginal abatement cost, timing JEL classification: Q54, Q52, Q58National governments committed to stabilize climate change to mitigate subsequent damages (G7, 2015; UNFCCC, 2016). This will require transitioning from an economy based on polluting capital, such as inefficient buildings and polluting cars, to an economy based on clean capital, such as retrofitted buildings or electric vehicles. A critical question for public policy is to determine the optimal cost and timing of such abatement investment. Is action as urgent as frequently advocated? A second important issue is the optimal allocation of abatement. There are many options to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, from renewable power plants to improved building insulation and more efficient cars. Each of these options has a cost, and would reduce emissions by a certain amount. Should mitigation start with the least expensive options and progressively clean the economy by ascending cost order?To shed light on these questions, we study the optimal timing, cost, and sectoral...

A near-term to net zero alternative to the social cost of carbon for setting carbon prices

“…Some frameworks emphasize the benefits of reducing near-term disruption and enabling innovation to bring down technology costs, which argue for a slower initial rate of reductions 28 . Other frameworks emphasize the importance of near-term deployments in reducing costs and avoiding technology lock-in [29][30][31] , as well as benefits from reducing cumulative emissions and respecting intergenerational equity.…”

“…This calls for an adaptive management strategy 36 whereby the analysis described above is repeated periodically. Using emissions outcomes and other relevant metrics (such as deployment rates of low-carbon infrastructure and progress in hard-to-decarbonize sectors 30 ), both the CO 2 price pathway and the broader climate policy strategy can be revised and extended, capturing the most up-to-date information.…”

Stranded asset implications of the Paris Agreement in Latin America and the Caribbean

“…Similarly, the NDCs scenarios require more new installations overall than the Straight-To scenarios, although the timing of these installations is delayed. Greater near-term mitigation spreads the new installation requirements more evenly across time; lowcarbon power installations in the near-term both lower near-term emissions and reduce the rate at which emissions must be curtailed post-2030 (figure 1), limiting the need for greater investments post-2030 to 'catch up' with the cumulative emissions budget [54].…”

Net-zero Deep Decarbonization Pathways in Latin America: Challenges and Opportunities

“…We also know that aligning national, regional and sectoral emissions with net-zero deep decarbonization is not only about how much is reduced in the short term, but how deep reductions are enabled for all sectors by mid-century through fundamental transformations to energy and material use in buildings, transport and industry, and use of agricultural, urban, and other lands [3,5,11,12]. In contrast to the historical approach of doing cheaper reductions first, net-zero requires selecting short-term actions that pave the way for the long term technical, institutional and behavioural changes needed for all sectors to go to zero or beyond into negative emissions [13]. This requires taking into account path dependencies, inertia, and lock-in risks related to the time it takes to commercialize new technologies, for them to replace existing stock, to build supply networks for new energy carriers, to develop new buildings and transport infrastructure, to shift land-use patterns, and to shift energy using behaviours.…”